TABLE OF CONTENTS
Thursday, October 27, 1994
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 7274
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 7276
Motion for concurrence in 44th report 7277
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 7278
Bill C-53. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 7278
Motion of Mr. Boudria 7280
Bill C-53. Consideration resumed of second reading 7280
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 7298
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 7299
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 7300
Amendment to amendment 7305
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 7307
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 7309
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7310
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7310
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7311
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7311
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7311
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7311
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7311
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7311
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7312
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7312
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 7312
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7312
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 7312
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7312
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 7312
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 7313
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7313
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 7313
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7313
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 7313
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7313
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7314
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7314
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 7314
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 7315
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7315
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7315
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7315
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7316
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 7316
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7316
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7316
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7317
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7317
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7317
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 7318
Bill C-57. Motion for second reading 7318
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 7340
Bill C-238. Motion for second reading. 7342
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 7342
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 7347
7273
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, October 27, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last March I was approached at my
constituency office by a constituent whom I had not met before
and whom I have not met since, to write a letter drawing the
attention of the CRTC to his application for a radio licence. I
explained to this constituent that as minister responsible I could
not interfere with the workings of the CRTC, but I agreed as his
member of Parliament to do my best to ensure that he was
treated fairly.
On March 15, I wrote to the chairman of the CRTC in my
capacity as an MP for this constituent asking the commission to
give the application a fair hearing. This was the letter of an MP
seeking to ensure that a constituent received due process.
I wish to table the letter. The letter was not meant in any way
to be an endorsement of the licence application, nor was it
intended to exert pressure on the CRTC. I also understand that
on March 30 the CRTC acknowledged my letter, categorizing it
as a letter in support of the licence applicant. That
acknowledgement letter was never brought to my attention. If it
had been, I would have immediately rectified the matter.
As soon as I did learn that one of the interested parties wrote
to me in September regarding my ``alleged support'' for the
licence application, I took immediate corrective action. I wrote
to the interested party, clarifying my earlier letter and clearing
up any misunderstanding.
In this letter dated September 30, I wrote:
My letter of March 15, 1994 to the CRTC simply asked that due consideration
be given to the application. It is not intended to convey support for or
opposition to the application. The CRTC is the body mandated by law to make
independent decisions on all such applications. It is therefore for the CRTC to
weigh the merits of the arguments raised by the applicants and the interveners.
I wish to table the letter. Members will note that I took these
actions before the matter became public. I did my best to clear
up and correct the situation not because of public or media
pressure which did not exist at the time but because it was the
right thing to do.
Being an MP and a minister is not always easy. Among other
things it is a learning experience. In hindsight it was imprudent
to send that original letter to the CRTC. I regret any
misunderstanding it may have caused.
I assure the House that I have never for a moment had any
hesitation or misunderstanding about my role or responsibilities
as a minister. As I said in the House on October 3 in answer to a
question from the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata, the
minister of heritage cannot dictate to an independent body like
the CRTC, which is also a regulating agency. It would be quite
inappropriate for the Minister of Canadian Heritage to tell it
what to do.
(1005)
I have held to that position every moment on this job and the
House has my commitment that I will continue to do so.
The Speaker: Of course the statement made to the House is a
clarification. The hon. minister has not asked me to rule on a
specific question of privilege at this time, and so the Chair
would accept the statement as given. At least at this point there
does not seem to be any reason for me to rule on a question of
privilege.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House there has been a
standing agreement between the government and the opposition
parties that ministers' statements would be given to opposition
parties for their critics' perusal sufficiently ahead of time so
they could prepare to respond to ministers' statements.
The agreement was that if a minister's statement were made in
the morning, that statement would be given to opposition parties
7274
the night before. This has not happened in this instance. We have
had less than one hour's notice. We protest greatly. We are
concerned about the minister's mismanagement of this situation
and we would ask him to defer the reading of the statement until
we have had proper time to review the statement so we can
effectively perform our role in opposition.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will see if I can help the
matter. I will come back to the hon. secretary of state if he
should so choose. From consultation I understand this is an
informal agreement between the parties. Certainly the Chair is
prepared to recognize the minister, as is appropriate, to make a
statement.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the record, we have an
agreement between parties that we will give enough advance
notice with documents for ministerial statements. This has been
respected in the past. I want to assure my colleague that it will
continue to be respected.
Sometimes situations arise which we have to deal with
immediately. This is the case, as was already explained to the
hon. member previous to the opening of the House. We
understand his concerns and we give the assurance that we will
continue to respect the agreement we have.
This is an exceptional circumstance as the minister will
explain to the House. There are some parts already public. We
believe it is important to do this as soon as possible since it
seems there was no agreement before the House opened that we
could have done it during question period. We are proceeding.
We will have the statement now.
(1010)
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, B.Q.): Mr.
Speaker, since the beginning of the 35th Parliament, it was
understood by the party in power and the Official Opposition
that the latter would receive prior notice of a minister's
statement. We all know that our role in this House is to do our
job as well as we can, in the best interest of the citizens of this
country. Today, however, this understanding has been
compromised by the fact that a ministerial statement will be
made without prior notice to the opposition. We feel that this
makes it difficult for us to play our role.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have heard comments
from both parties, but I will now proceed with Statements by
Ministers.
I therefore recognize the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency.
7274
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me
say to my colleagues opposite that I apologize for any
inconvenience which may have been caused to them as a result
of the statement not getting there earlier as opposed to the late
time they received it.
Mr. Silye: You knew about it for months and you cannot
co-operate.
Mr. Dingwall: If the hon. member finds the subject matter so
difficult to comprehend I will read very slowly so that he can
understand each and every word. I am prepared to be fully
co-operative with the opposition in every way. I was extending
an apology for the inconvenience which we caused to the
opposition.
However I believe the minister of state and the whip for our
party informed the opposition of the miscue which took place. I
felt compelled that we would come here this morning to share
this information and have members of the opposition add their
comments to the decisions which have been arrived at.
I want to take this opportunity to advise members of the
House and Canadians whom we represent of the latest initiative
related to the long range plan for the preservation and
rehabilitation of our most important national symbol, the
Parliament Buildings.
Over the last number of years funding for renovations to
Parliament Hill has been severely restricted. The Auditor
General in his 1992 report noted that the government has
neglected to undertake most of the necessary repairs and
renovations to the parliamentary precinct identified in the 1970s
and the 1980s.
Parliament Hill requires urgent attention. The simple fact is
that we can no longer afford to neglect it. Over the next 12 to 15
years, and I wish to underline this point, the buildings and
grounds will require considerable attention. During that period
we will in turn address the requirements of all buildings on the
Hill to guarantee that in the future they remain safe for
Canadians and healthy for the occupants.
[Translation]
We want to ensure that the buildings and grounds on
Parliament Hill are energy-efficient, are relatively cheap to
operate, meet environmental standards and are accessible for all
Canadians. We must protect and preserve our national heritage.
7275
[English]
The long range plan developed by the Department of Public
Works and Government Services addresses in a logical sequence
the need for that preservation. As recent visitors to Parliament
Hill will have noticed, we are currently undertaking critical
repairs to restore the Peace Tower and to stabilize the outside-
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like
to call for quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will ask the clerk to
count the members present.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I see a quorum. I will ask
the hon. minister to continue.
(1015 )
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the long range plan developed by
the Department of Public Works and Government Services
addresses in a logical sequence the need for preservation.
As recent visitors to Parliament Hill will have noticed, we are
currently undertaking repairs to restore the Peace Tower and to
stabilize the outside masonry of the Centre Block.
[Translation]
We are also installing new water mains that will make it easier
to fight fires on the Hill, and of course the government is taking
the requisite steps to make the Parliament Buildings conform to
the National Building Code.
[English]
The first scheduled major rehabilitation project on an
occupied building is the West Block.
Following the next dissolution of Parliament we will close
down the West Block for a few years and use the Justice Building
as alternative office space. Complete repairs to the West Block
require the removal of asbestos and we cannot put the health of
MPs and staff at risk by keeping the building open during the
repairs.
New mechanical and electrical systems must be installed.
New fire detection, alarm and sprinkler systems must be in
place. New waterproofing, windows, new energy saving devices
are required. Sewage facilities must be upgraded. Walls,
ceilings and roofs require attention. Elevators, doors and
washrooms must be modernized to accommodate the disabled.
When the West Block is reopened, renovation of the Centre
Block will begin early in the next century, with MPs and staff
from the Centre Block moving to the West Block.
A long range plan is absolutely vital if we are to safeguard the
Parliament Buildings. The cost over a 12 to 15 year period is
approximately $265 million. Of course we cannot afford to
spend all that money at once nor can we afford to shut down the
essential operations of Parliament. That is why the plan is over
a 12 to 15 year period.
Given the current climate, we are not talking about a Cadillac
renovation here. I want to be very clear on this. Consistent with
our Chevrolet approach we have prioritized and addressed only
the most critical of the health and safety issues that affect the
parliamentary precinct. If not, that figure would have been in
excess of $450 million.
During the course of renovations we will be working with the
House of Commons, the Library of Parliament and the Senate to
ensure continued access to visitors to Parliament Hill.
All contracts will be awarded through the open bidding
system. Since Parliament Hill is the focal point of Canadian
democracy, only Canadian businesses and Canadian workers
will be eligible to do the rehabilitation work.
This is not about fancy new furnishings or lavish new offices.
It is strictly about protecting our history and guaranteeing the
safety, health, environment and accessibility of the Parliament
Buildings. Canadians expect the Parliament Buildings to be
preserved. They are willing to pay for the renovations if they are
done in a prudent, fiscally responsible and open manner, and
that is what is being accomplished.
As the minister responsible for public works and government
services, I would be happy to report to the standing committee
on government operations on the progress that has been made,
answer questions members or other individuals might have
concerning those expenditures to assure all members that the
expenditures are prudent, fiscally responsible and have been
carried out in a very open fashion.
On a continuous basis all attempts to minimize to the fullest
extent possible potential disruptions resulting from noise, dust
or interruption of services are being made.
[Translation]
I sincerely want to thank all members on both sides of the
House for their understanding and patience during these major
renovations.
(1020 )
[English]
May I add my thanks to the Speaker and to all parties in the
House of Commons for their advice. As members opposite will
know and appreciate, the Board of Internal Economy, which is
represented by three political parties, proved to be most helpful
on this relocation project.
I am very pleased we have the consent of all the major parties
to proceed with this vital initiative which protects the health and
7276
safety of visitors and occupants of the parliamentary buildings,
Canada's most important national heritage site.
Let me repeat what I said at the beginning. I apologize to my
colleagues if these deliberations and the statement has caused
them inconvenience, however they are fully aware that
information was provided to government employees and not to
members, so I thought it only appropriate that I come to the
House at the soonest possible time to share this information with
all members of Parliament.
As members opposite know, the subject matter has been
discussed at the Board of Internal Economy where all parties
have been represented and have had an opportunity to
participate. I believe that goes back, if memory serves me
correctly, to some time in May of last year.
In conclusion, I regret the inconvenience we may have caused
colleagues opposite but I want to indicate to them that I believe
this is in the best interest of Canada's national heritage site, the
parliamentary precinct.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
as my party's critic for parliamentary affairs, instead of
responding to the substance of this ministerial statement, I must
inform the minister that although there were discussions
between the parties on the Board of Internal Economy, that is no
excuse for not advising us of the content so that we can do our
job.
I repeat that the basic objective of the Official Opposition in
this system is to do a good job by monitoring the government
and government operations and by defending the interests of our
fellow citizens.
Since the beginning of this 35th Parliament, as far as
parliamentary affairs are concerned, it was tacitly understood
that the opposition would get the information a few hours before
ministers made their statements. The purpose of this
understanding was to help us do our job as well and as
democratically as possible. In this particular case, we seem to be
right in the parliamentary stone age.
The opposition's role is to monitor the government's
administration. What disturbs us in this particular case, which
concerns the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, is that we lack the detailed information we need to be
able to respond, and I must say it is particularly difficult for
members to obtain information from this department. This is a
closed department, a department that distributes contracts and
also a department where members find it extremely difficult to
get information. For instance, when low-cost housing projects
are officially opened in Quebec, the department, according to its
own particular protocol, invites all the provincial members,
mayors, and so forth, except the members of the Official
Opposition. This is the kind of department and the kind of
minister we find disturbing.
This morning, we cannot do our job because of the kind of
behaviour that is typical of a department that is so secretive that
it tables documents at the last minute.
That is why we cannot respond on the substance of this
statement and, in the name of democracy, we regret that we
cannot. And again, we may remind everyone, and especially the
minister's colleagues, that this is the most difficult department
from which to get information.
(1025 )
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I begin my
speech as my hon. colleague from the Bloc has by once again
chastising the minister and the department for the problem of
timing.
We understood that the government had an agenda of more
openness in government, more accountability. I remember
hearing during the campaign: ``We want to make Parliament
work better'' and yet at every turn we have what could almost be
called obstructionism from the government. We are receiving
inadequate notice of these statements and therefore cannot
respond in substance. We cannot possibly hold a reasoned
debate on the issue.
I believe that the work in committees is important. I was in a
committee meeting where we were talking about the Lobbyists
Registration Act and how to improve accessibility and
accountability in government.
Ten minutes to the hour I received notice that the minister was
going to make a statement. As the critic in that area I had to
leave what at that time was very important work. I had no time to
arrange for a substitute so no representative of our party is in the
committee meeting which is going on as we speak.
Here I am talking about a statement which, admittedly, has
very little substance so I do not need five days to look at it, but I
really would have appreciated enough notice so that I could have
organized my time today. I could have had substitutes in my
committee so the real work of Parliament could proceed in a
rational, orderly fashion.
I cannot help but applaud the initial statement because we
want to keep these buildings up, we want to keep them in a safe
condition, we want to be environmentally responsible. Those
are all very good goals. However we need time to go through the
cost estimates to see whether the taxpayers' money is being
spent wisely. I do not know at this stage whether it is but we need
some time to do that.
The minister has given some specifics. He indicated for
example that we should repair some washrooms and remove the
7277
asbestos in the ceilings. That is pretty good and I do not think we
need to spend a lot of time debating that in the House of
Commons.
I find it interesting that he made no mention of repairing the
tunnel to the East Block. Perhaps he too is writing off the
usefulness of the other place. I do not know.
When we talk of repairing and keeping the buildings up, an
even more important point is that we ought to be looking at what
is inside. The buildings are not nearly as important as the people
and the individuals who work here, including the members of
Parliament.
What we ought to be doing, because this type of thing should
be passed very quickly, is getting on with the job. We need to
look at the effectiveness of members of Parliament and whether
we will ever in this place have free votes so that members can
represent their constituents. That is one of the flaws that needs
to be fixed in this place, that needs no public works but is very
important and needs to be done.
I really believe that the minister needs to sharpen up a bit.
How can I say that politely? This is the second time we have had
10 minutes or half an hour to react. Let us assure the people of
Canada that we can run this place correctly and properly.
I would like to say one more thing about the process. This is
the only thing to which I have had a chance to respond. I read
this thing while walking over from my office, walking and
reading, and the only thing I can say at this stage because of lack
of time to analyse it in greater depth is with respect to the time.
(1030 )
I can hardly believe we need to shut down a building for three
years while it is being repaired. That certainly is not the way
things are done in private industry. If this were an office
building and no rent was being collected we can be assured that
whoever owned that building would arrange for contractors to
do it. I do not think they would do it on the weekends but I assure
the House they would do it much more rapidly.
The West Block has four floors. Surely crews could be
assembled so that four crews per floor could work over the
summer and the repairs would be finished when we came back in
the fall. There is no reason that could not be done.
I cannot believe this is going to take three years. Maybe it is
going to be a case of one dumb digger dug into the ditch, the
other dumb digger dug out. Maybe that is what is going to
happen. I really do not know.
There is an obvious lack of planning when it has been
determined it will take that long. There is a considerable
disruption to the operation of Parliament by having the
displacement away from that building. We should be able to do
much better than that.
I suppose that is all we can expect from the present
government. We very much look forward to putting the Liberals
into their correct place at the next election. Perhaps we will have
the opportunity to do better.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 44th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
[English]
If the House gives its consent I propose that we dispense with
reading the 44th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs which deals with changes in the membership
on committees. If that is the case, I move that the 44th report of
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs,
presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
The first petition is from residents of Oliver and Osoyoos,
British Columbia. They pray and request that Parliament not
amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act
or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would
tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of
homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting today has 204
signatures. These signatures are mainly from residents of
Summerland, British Columbia.
The petitioners note that the Prime Minister has stated that a
meaningful debate on the question of doctor assisted suicide
will take place in the House. The petitioners oppose any
legislation that would permit doctor assisted suicide because it
demeans the value of human life.
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament not to enact any
legislation that would allow assisted suicide. I concur with my
petitioners on both of these petitions.
7278
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to
present two petitions today both dealing with the same subject.
Constituents from the city of Burnaby, British Columbia, pray
that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the
Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be
enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the
law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of
suicide, or active or passive euthanasia.
(1035 )
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present three petitions this
morning.
In the first petition the petitioners pray and request that
Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any
way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): In the second petition the petitioners pray that Parliament
will act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by
amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection
enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the third petition the petitioners pray that
Parliament will do two things: first, ensure that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously; and, second, make no changes in
law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of
suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to present a petition
today on behalf of Jo Congdon and 52 others praying that
Parliament not repeal or amend section 241 of the Criminal
Code in any way and to uphold the Supreme Court of Canada
decision of September 30, 1993 to disallow assisted suicide
euthanasia.
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall all questions be
allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wish to inform the
House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b) because of the
ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by
20 minutes.
_____________________________________________
7278
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from October 26 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of
Canadian Heritage and to amend and repeal certain other acts, be
read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the
amendment.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on Bill
C-53 creating the Department of Canadian Heritage.
First of all, I think it is essential for all members of this House
to be aware that this bill is a technicality.
Since our government has been in office, the Department of
Canadian Heritage has vigorously pursued its mandate and
played a key role in Canadian society. Its activities reflect a
wide range of responsibilities in areas of cultural development,
arts, broadcasting, national parks, historic sites, amateur sport
and multiculturalism.
The department also administers official languages, state
ceremonial and Native programs, which are all fundamental
elements of the Canadian identity. In a world where
international barriers are disappearing, where technology is
altering borders, Canadian identity lies at the heart of our
country's growth.
It goes without saying that the federal government needs an
instrument such as the Department of Canadian Heritage to
carry on its work to develop Canadian culture and promote
Canadian identity.
I cannot describe in detail all the responsibilities entrusted to
the Department of Canadian Heritage, but I will outline some of
its activities that are essential to our society's development.
(1040)
National parks and historic sites are concrete symbols of this
country's wealth and an important part of the duties performed
by the Department of Canadian Heritage which are designed to
promote Canadian identity. Our natural heritage, our vast terri-
7279
tory, our history and our place in the world play a crucial role in
promoting our identity and the values we cherish as Canadians.
Furthermore, the official languages policy introduced by the
federal government in the 1970s reflects a generous and creative
vision. The Department of Canadian Heritage was assigned the
responsibility of ensuring that French-and English-speaking
Canadians feel at home wherever they choose to reside.
The principle of respect for both official languages of Canada,
combined with respect for the traditions and contributions of
aboriginal peoples, respect for our cultural diversity as well as
fundamental respect for human rights make Canada a land of
open-mindedness and opportunity that millions of people dream
of around the world.
New Canadians and their language skills constitute a valuable
asset for the Canadian society. Just think of the key role they
play in our cultural exchanges and trade transactions with
foreign countries. The heart of Canada is beating to the rhythm
of our many cultures, and the impact of these new human
resources will help us progress.
In the international arena, nations strive to find the way to
bind together, with a deep feeling of national identity,
populations made up of various ethnic, cultural, linguistic and
racial groups. Several countries are currently looking seriously
into the purely Canadian model we have come up with. The
multicultural dimension of Canada is a rich social reality in our
country, a reality that we must preserve.
Giving each Canadian the place he or she deserves in our
society and the opportunity to contribute fully to building a
stronger country can only benefit us all. In the enactment
establishing the Department of Canadian Heritage, I note that
the government undertakes to achieve equality for all Canadians
in matters relating to the social, economic and cultural life of
their country.
The Department of Canadian Heritage recognizes the need to
remove barriers which divide Canada and build ties based on
trust and respect. Bear in mind that the purpose of
multiculturalism is to ensure social unity and strengthen
national identity. Greater participation by all Canadians in
community life can only serve to increase awareness of our
cultural and natural wealth.
As for the policies and programs of the Canadian heritage
department, their purpose is to promote a greater understanding
of our diversity. Let us not forget that, for many communities,
the economic and tourist activity generated by departmental
operations is often vital. These are broad responsibilities that
the Department of Canadian Heritage is fully capable of
carrying out.
In closing, I wish to emphasize the need for Bill C-53 to be
passed, to recognize formally the jurisdiction of the Department
of Canadian Heritage and to allow the department to continue
pursuing the mission it has been pursuing for a year and a half.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to speak this morning about the motion of my
colleague, the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata, on an
amendment to Bill C-53 that she tabled on October 4.
This amendment asks that Bill C-53 not be now read a second
time, but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the
subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage. Mr. Speaker, you will understand that today I would
not want to give all the reasons for which I am for or against Bill
C-53. I will do that later if necessary.
Nevertheless, I would like to make this House aware of the
means it has adopted and which should not be overlooked by a
minister who may wish to have his bill approved as quickly as
possible.
(1045)
The House of Commons must insist that bills presented to us
on second reading have been considered, first of all, by the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. The House of
Commons created this committee to fulfil its role; otherwise,
what would be the use of it?
Among other things, it is supposed to get to the bottom of the
issues by the most appropriate means-hearings, forming
sub-committees, nationwide tours, consultations with the
provinces-and especially by trying to obtain a national
consensus, even within the committee.
After that, we will be able to talk about whether it is
appropriate to pass a bill establishing the Department of
Canadian Heritage. I believe that the standing committee will
have a lot of work to do before it comes back to us with a bill that
we are sure will be quite different.
Some people, especially some Quebec government
departments, I would say, have some very specific things to tell
the committee, so it is totally justified to submit Bill C-53 to it
for consideration.
First, the committee can find out what this department's
mandate is, and it can see that it makes no reference to Quebec as
a distinct society, much less any reference to its cultural
specificity.
Once again, the committee will realize that the former Liberal
government denied the reality of Quebec culture by diluting it in
a Canadian cultural entity based on bilingualism and
multiculturalism. This department is being created in the wake
of the defunct Charlottetown Accord, which proposed a
fictitious and deceptive recognition of the provinces' exclusive
jurisdiction over culture.
The committee will also be able to note that the
straightforward demands of Quebec's former Minister of
Culture, Ms. Frulla-Hébert, are not reflected in the future
orientation of the new Department of Canadian Heritage. So you
will understand
7280
that we must think twice before presenting such legislation to
the new sovereignist government of Quebec.
Without making a list of the areas, and I will come back to this
a little later if need be, the committee will see that duplication
and overlap in the field of culture will increase rather than
decrease with this bill.
Taking Quebec as an example, we are faced with two systems
of cultural institutions, each Quebec institution having its
federal counterpart, except for the National Film Board.
In summary, Quebec has a budget of $425 million and Ottawa
$2.8 billion.
Culture is under provincial jurisdiction and the Standing
Committee on Canadian Heritage will realize that it must
recommend that the House of Commons stop unnecessary
spending at a time when social programs are under attack to
reduce the deficit and stop allowing interference in provincial
jurisdiction over culture.
The Bloc Quebecois will demonstrate to the Standing
Committee on Canadian Heritage, through the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata, that both the Conservatives and the
Liberals developed their respective cultural policies by
increasing federal interference in the cultural sector and by
denying the distinct identity of Quebecers.
Through its representatives on that committee, the Bloc will
present its views on cultural institutions. We do not intend to
deny to Canadians the right to their own federal cultural
institutions. However, the Bloc will make sure that Quebec's
cultural community gets its fair share of subsidies from federal
granting agencies and that the waste resulting from duplication
is stopped.
The committee would be well-advised to read the report of
the consulting group on Quebec's cultural policy, which was
tabled in Quebec's National Assembly on June 14, 1991. That
document was reviewed by a parliamentary committee over a
period lasting almost eight weeks, in the fall of 1992, during
which 181 Quebec organizations were heard and 264 written
submissions were received. Following the work of that
committee, Quebec developed a cultural policy and the Standing
Committee on Canadian Heritage will have to examine that
policy prior to a thorough review of the cultural issue. If the
committee cannot find that policy, I will be pleased to send it a
copy upon request.
(1050)
By adopting its own cultural policy, the Quebec government
demonstrated its keen desire to provide Quebecers with a
cultural development framework which allows them to thrive.
Again, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage will have
to take that policy into account before making any
recommendation to this House.
As I said at the beginning, and I will conclude on that note, I
did not want to elaborate too much on Bill C-53 itself. I simply
wanted to make this House aware of the need to pass the motion
tabled by the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata, and to
refer the whole issue to the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage which, I am convinced, will provide us with an
amended bill taking into consideration all groups within the
populatiobn as well as their legitimate aspirations.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): I
rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think you would find
unanimous consent in the House for the following motion:
That notwithstanding any other order of this House that any vote on
government bills or private members' bills to be taken on October 27 or October
28, 1994, be deferred until Tuesday, November 1, at the conclusion of
Government Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms of the motion of the chief government whip. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
7280
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from October 26 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-53 an act to establish the Department of
Canadian Heritage to amend and repeal certain other acts, be
read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the
amendment.
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to speak this morning to Bill C-53,
which I see as important and essential to Canadian society
because of what it represents. All members who spoke to the bill
in this House expressed the view that it was basically a
housekeeping bill. In fact, the purpose of this legislation is
simply to reassign departmental responsibilities.
We have heard criticism from the two opposition parties.
Certain details, certain aspects of the bill were criticized, of
course, but in addition, and this is what irks me, they took this
opportunity to criticize the federal government's role in the
cultural sphere. I think that if we are to have a constructive
debate, my comments should deal mainly with the federal
government's role in this area. According to the opposition
parties, the federal government should withdraw from anything
that resembles cultural affairs, should stop working with major
agencies like Telefilm Canada and, listen to this, should get rid
7281
of an agency as important as the Department of Canadian
Heritage.
The opposition parties even claim, and this I found hard to
take seriously, that the federal government will use these
institutions against the province of Quebec and even against the
French fact in Canada as a whole. It takes all kinds, but this takes
the cake!
(1055)
Such comments seem unwise, to say the least, considering the
current political context in this country.
I want to make it clear that the federal government's role in
cultural matters is a fundamental and entirely legitimate one,
and I hope that this short speech will reassure opposition
members.
Why is this role so important? The federal government's role
is important because of the way Canada was built. We all know
that Canada is a wonderful mosaic of various cultures, with two
official languages. We also know that Canada as a country has
opted for social values based on tolerance, mutual respect,
multiculturalism and promotion of the Canadian identity. In this
respect, the federal government's role as Canadian umbrella, a
Canadian vehicle for promoting our identity as Canadians, is
fundamental.
As parliamentarians we must take the broader view and keep
this debate removed from what I call constitutional squabbles.
Quebec and the rest of the country have already suffered enough
as a result of this quarrelling which in most cases has been of no
benefit to the people of this country and often puts an extra
burden on Canadian taxpayers. We should recall the purpose of
this bill and especially the Canadian government's role, and stop
this constitutional nitpicking.
It is obvious that you have gathered from my remarks that I
am wary of what the Official Opposition is affirming, but also of
the Reform Party, which wants to go ahead with unweighed and
often unjustified cuts that would go against some basic
principles stated by the Prime Minister of Canada, principles he
has stated and, indeed, states regularly, in this House. The
federal government must respond to the budget situation, while
remaining at the service of the population and, in this role,
promote Canadian identity.
Of course, we must rise above constitutional disputes, but
without losing sight of the objectives set by the government in
terms of government administration. The government wants to
make sure that we can stay away from any form of duplication. It
also wants to make sure that we can streamline government
operations and I might add that it is desirable that government
administrations at all levels be streamlined.
Bill C-53, to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage,
is part of this streamlining process respectful of authority, or
should I say the powers inherent to the three levels of
government, specifically the municipal, provincial and federal
levels.
The department the Bloc Quebecois would like to see
abolished is also the backbone of institutions such as national
museums, the Canada Council-allow me to list a few more key
organizations-Telefilm and the National Film Board and
various programs encouraging interprovincial distribution,
exportation of our cultural products and promotion of Canadian
talent internationally.
In fact, I would add that the federal government is making use
of the legislative or statutory instruments within its jurisdiction,
such as copyright or income tax, to encourage or oversee artistic
creation and cultural diffusion.
(1100)
Of course, the provinces and municipalities, as I said, also
have a role and since each government has an important role in
these fields of jurisdiction, I should say that they have a key
role, a complementary role, in fact, with respect to culture.
Far be it from me to challenge the authority of these levels of
government. I would even go further by stating the obvious fact
that Quebec's powers are special, since it is the centre of French
culture in North America. But, of course, this does not prevent
the Canadian government from assuming its own
responsibilities of encouraging interprovincial trade, sharing a
common heritage, structuring the markets for cultural products
by using the tools that it alone has at its disposal.
I understand that the way the Bloc sees things, Quebec's goal
is to keep anything federal off its territory; however, to say that
the break-up of the country is necessary because the federal
government's intervention harms Quebec culture is the kind of
intellectually twisted argument that they usually give us,
unfortunately, and give all Quebecers especially. I think that this
attitude is meant to justify at any cost a case that they consider
has been proven beyond question. They deliberately want to
tarnish a record in which all Quebecers can take pride.
To conclude, I recently heard some Bloc critics and I was
deeply offended as a Quebecer. Some Bloc critics say that they
want to confine the whole province within a single definition,
that of a nation. I must say that Quebec is not a definition.
Quebec is made up of people who have pride, their customs and
culture, a culture that they want to extend throughout Canada
and internationally. There is also a French community that is
alive and well outside of Quebec.
The federal government's role and the purpose of this bill are
to make it possible-and I conclude-for this French
community to flourish more and for the two official languages to
live together better, all for the sake of promoting what we call a
Canadian identity, of which I am proud.
7282
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this morning to speak on
Bill C-53 respecting multiculturalism.
I do challenge whether government should be involved in this
program. It is very important for the government and ministers
of the crown to realize the influence they hold over the people
who provide government services on a daily basis.
It is also important for those in a position of power to
understand that what they say and do will influence and give
direction to the bureaucracy. It is important that all ministers of
the crown appreciate what intervention is.
The policy of multiculturalism in Canada is a program that the
Government of Canada has imposed and forced on Canadians. I
believe that the philosophy of the multiculturalism program is
very divisive. I am proud of the heritage of many of the people in
this great country of ours. I do not think that any Canadians from
the beginning have needed government to provide a program in
order for them to share their cultural backgrounds with other
Canadians. I feel it is a place where the federal government
should not be involved. I take great exception to the federal
government's using ethnic and cultural backgrounds as a basis
for employing people within government services.
(1105 )
I am offended that our federal government departments are
required to list employees by their gender, by whether they
belong to aboriginal people, whether they are a visible minority
or persons with disabilities.
I am offended when government officials are proudly
announcing that they have either met or exceeded their quotas. I
do not believe that government departments have any business
in developing quotas.
How do they get the stats they are so proud of which they use
so loosely? They are self-identification stats by individuals who
are required to fill out a form identifying to what sub-groups
they belong.
I feel that these kinds of policies are very divisive not only
within Canadian society but certainly within our Canadian
government services. The government is not satisfied with just
creating hyphenated Canadians. It now wants Canadians to list
their lineage.
I believe there is a real question of what is a visible minority.
Is this a person of a mixed race? Do they have to look like a
mixed race person to belong to a visible minority? Do they just
need to have it in their lineage?
If we are basing employment on the appearance of people, I
have great difficulty with those people who are judging whether
those people belong to visible minorities.
What if there are two people with the same background but
one appears to be of a visible minority group and the other one
not so much? Does the one qualify for the job in government and
the sibling not qualify?
For the government to start looking at a quota system in its
employees is going down the wrong way. All we have to do is
look at when quotas and the appearance of people were used in
history, for it is not in circumstances that we can be proud of.
To establish lineage, ethnic background or what qualifies as a
visible minority do we need to be one-half of a particular ethnic
group? What about one-quarter, one-eighth or one-sixteenth?
Where does it begin and where does it end?
This whole idea is ridiculous. I believe that classifying people
by lineage is obscene. History would show us that it is obscene. I
would like to question why any government would want to
encourage and continue this practice.
A second point that I am concerned about is how the policy of
multiculturalism is affecting our courts. There was a case in
Vancouver in which the parent of a child was being questioned
when the parent was trying to put the child up for adoption. The
biological father happened to be of aboriginal origin, not full
blooded and not half blooded, but a quarter.
Here was a judge in the courts having to determine what
percentage of aboriginal background this child had and whether
that child should be given to the father to be raised in the
aboriginal community.
It turns out that the child was close to one-sixteenth
aboriginal and the judge in making his decision felt that the
child did not have enough native background in order to be
placed in an aboriginal foster home or family.
Why should any judge be faced with this kind of decision?
Why should it ever be important where that child originated?
What should be important are the best interests of the growth of
that child, the provisions that could be made to that child in its
infancy and furthermore in its growing years, not whether it is a
member of a visible minority.
The other issue that I find very offensive is this reverse
discrimination that we see. I am going to use the RCMP as an
example. The RCMP is being asked to impose this affirmative
action, judging people's employment ability on their gender, on
whether they are a visible minority or whether they belong to a
group that is physically handicapped.
(1110 )
I would suggest that when we have a government department
that in Alberta a few years ago decided it would not accept
applications, we are not talking about giving them jobs. We are
talking about accepting applications from white unilingual
males. I take exception to that. It shows me that all Canadians
are not being given equal opportunity. I do not think it solves
the problem that the RCMP had with not hiring women and not
hiring minority members 20 years ago. It does not solve that
7283
problem by discriminating against young white males today. I
do not think those individuals feel they are being treated as
Canadians, and I would suggest that they are not.
It is very important for the government to seriously consider
whether it has a legitimate right to be involved in this kind of
multiculturalism program that does invade and does reach out
into all aspects of Canadian society.
I would challenge the government that this program is very
divisive and is creating a situation in the country that is very
dangerous. I see growth in ethnic groups and youth groups vying
for a position of power within our communities, pitting one
racial group against the other.
I hear from new immigrants who say they came to Canada
looking for and anticipating a new Canadian culture and when
they get here they are being encouraged to keep the culture of the
place from which they came. They are here with a sense of
frustration, of not knowing where to turn. We as the Canadian
government have a responsibility to new Canadians to bring
together all those things that we share, all those programs and
ideals that we are looking to have in this country that will make
it a stronger unified country.
I do not think the federal government should be encouraging
programs such as multiculturalism and bilingualism that divide
Canadians, that bring them up against each other in vying for
superiority and power. It is time that the government realized all
Canadians deserve equal treatment from the federal
government, should be considered equal members of Canadian
society and stop this fallacy, this obscenity of creating divisions
based on language and ethnic background.
I would encourage the House to reconsider supporting Bill
C-53.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to rise in the House today to participate in this
debate on Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of
Canadian Heritage. My remarks today will be mainly involving
Parks Canada's involvement and the role it will play in this act.
It has been said many times that we have inherited a rich
legacy and every generation of Canadians has had an
opportunity to make a contribution to it. That legacy is our
heritage which we share with everyone in Canada wherever they
live and whatever their background.
Our natural and wilderness heritage and our sense of history
and place are vital elements of this heritage we all share. They
are central to who we are and what we value as Canadians.
The new Department of Canadian Heritage reflects the many
dimensions of the Canadian experience, an experience that is
always evolving. Protecting areas of natural and historic
significance to the nation for the benefit and enjoyment of all
Canadians is the responsibility of the Department of Canadian
Heritage.
In the past a big part of that job has been done and will
continue to be done by Parks Canada, a key component of the
new department. The creation of the Department of Canadian
Heritage will not in any way undermine the importance we place
on issues associated with the protection and preservation of our
natural heritage, both natural and cultural.
(1115 )
The Department of Canadian Heritage supports Parks
Canada's mandate in this area. All parts of the department are
working hard to make sure that Canada's heritage and
environment are valued today and passed on to tomorrow.
Parks Canada's traditions, now departmental traditions, go
back more than a century to the establishment at Banff in 1885
of Canada's first national park. Of course our system of national
historic sites started with Fort Anne in Nova Scotia more than 75
years ago.
From Ellesmere Island national park within the Arctic circle
in the north to Point Pelee national park at the southern tip of
Canada and from the lighthouse at Cape Spear national historic
site at the country's eastern edge on the Atlantic to the Pacific
rim national park on the west coast, our national parks and
national historic sites dot the length and the breadth of Canada.
They are Canada's pride, the crown jewels of our heritage.
Canadians have a strong attachment to and affection for the
land and the landscape of the country whether found in small
towns, in rural areas, in the wilderness or in the historic districts
of the large cities.
Landscape is a vital component of our heritage and it forms
part of the rhythm of our lives. Our historic landmarks are a vital
part of the landscape, a significant and irreplaceable part of
Canada's physical environment. Canada's national historic
sites, heritage railway stations and federal heritage buildings
are located in every province and territory.
Mr. Speaker, as I speak to you today there is construction
under way in my riding of Hillsborough, Prince Edward Island,
on the building of a memorial park to commemorate the place
where the Fathers of Confederation first stepped ashore and
began their journey up Great George Street to the steps of
Province House in Charlottetown. What occurred over the next
few days in Province House was indeed the beginning of the
formation of our country as we know it today. From that point on
Charlottetown was to become known as the birthplace of
Confederation.
7284
These historical sites are a tangible symbol of our national
unity and heritage and are of great importance to the
constituents in my riding as well as to the many people who
come to visit them.
One or more national historic sites are located in over 400
communities across the land, meaning that these communities
are direct stakeholders in the national heritage, sharing that
heritage with their fellow Canadians and with visitors to our
country.
Our country's national parks, national marine conservation
areas and heritage rivers add to this shared legacy of outstanding
special places held in trust for all Canadians.
As symbols of our national heritage all of these special places
speak directly to Canadian identity. They are living laboratories,
places where the public can truly experience Canada's past or its
wilderness.
Historic sites cover a vast span of human history measured in
thousands of years and document the populating of the land,
economic and social development, nation building, Canadian
achievements in arts, culture, human rights, wilderness
preservation and the sciences, as well as a vast number of other
human endeavours and activities. As both the product and the
witness of the works of our predecessors, they are fundamental
to a broadly defined and diverse yet encompassing sense of
Canadian identity.
These heritage places provide an excellent opportunity to
make all Canadians more aware of their history and to make
landed immigrants and new Canadians aware of their Canadian
heritage, aware of the places, events, activities and people that
have made us what we are. In this respect these places can play a
vital role promoting citizenship value.
Because these historic sites are nationally significant they
serve as links between the community and the nation and
between the subject of commemoration and our national history.
Each national historic site can be said to illustrate an
important chapter in a national saga that is constantly unfolding
not only into the future but perhaps surprisingly into the past. A
number of national historic sites document the fact that our
human history is many thousands of years older than we once
thought.
National historic sites represent one of the most important
and valuable examples of a vital Canadian tradition, the
partnership between individuals, corporations and governments
in the history of our country.
(1120 )
Fewer than one-fifth of Canada's national historic sites are
owned by the federal government. The investment, the
involvement and the co-operation of others in the preservation
of places that have been designated nationally significant by the
federal government is a remarkable and regrettably often little
recognized national partnership of achievement.
Federal heritage buildings and heritage railway stations recall
an era when federal buildings and railway stations were often
the most important and imposing landmarks in communities
large and small across the country, serving as symbols of
national integration and confidence in the future.
No less significant than national historic sites, federal
heritage buildings and heritage railway stations is the program
that formally recognizes persons and events that have played an
important part in our history. The program fosters knowledge
and appreciation of the achievements of Canadians, such as the
boxer Sam Langford, the poet Pauline Johnson, the scientist and
educator Frère Marie-Victorin, piano manufacturer Theodore
Heintzman, and reformer Nellie McClung.
Events or themes that have been officially recognized have
included the inauguration of the transcontinental railway
service and the assertion of Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic.
I know that my time is running out. I could continue on for
many more minutes here but I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are
looking at your watch.
The Department of Canadian Heritage will be much more than
the sum of its parts. Canada is a country of great geographical
and cultural diversity, yet as Canadians we share so much.
Our objective is to foster pride in our achievements as people
and as a country. Canada's heritage is evolving. Each generation
is making its own contribution to the development of our shared
heritage.
Working together in the new department in partnership with
Canadians we will achieve more than we ever could do on our
own. I invite all members of the House to support the bill to
create the Department of Canadian Heritage.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to the proposed amendment to Bill C-53, an
Act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage. This
amendment calls for the bill to be withdrawn and the
subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage.
I would like to say at the outset that the fears the hon. member
for Outremont wants to dispel have been reaffirmed by this bill.
There is no place for Quebec or for the distinct society. It is
always surprising, not to say sad, to see the illusions of timid
nationalists reaffirmed after fighting in vain for 30 years.
When we look closely at the sectors, the functions and the
people targeted by this new department, we quickly realize that
this is a ``grab bag'' department, a hodge-podge of programs
which clearly show either the Canadian government's inconsis-
7285
tency or its less than transparent strategy in dividing up
responsibilities, in bringing together parts of the following
federal departments: Environment Canada; Multiculturalism
and Citizenship; the part of Health and Welfare responsible for
amateur sport; part of the Canadian Secretary of State, namely
official languages, Canadian studies, Native programs and state
protocol; the part of Environment Canada responsible for Parks
Canada and historic sites; the part of the Department of
Communications responsible for the arts, heritage, culture and
broadcasting.
Later, they will add the Registrar General of Canada from the
Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The new
Department of Canadian Heritage, whose creation was
undertaken by the Conservative government, brings together for
the first time all of Ottawa's cultural policy instruments, namely
the Canada Council, the CBC, the National Film Board, Telefilm
Canada, national parks and museums, National Archives, etc.
This department will have a budget in the order of $2.8
billion, compared with a $425 million budget for Quebec's
Ministry of Culture. In addition, several responsibilities
assigned to the Department of Canadian Heritage must be
fulfilled in co-operation with other departments, thus reducing
the heritage minister's actual power and political say in
administering his own department. After this morning's
statement by the minister, we can conclude that even his moral
power is affected.
Moreover, responsibility for telecommunications policy and
programs was transferred from the Department of
Communications to the new Department of Industry. All this
with little or no staff or spending reduction in sight. So what is
the real purpose of this reorganization? The real powers granted
to the Minister of Heritage are like jam: the less you have, the
more you spread it around. In this case, the new department's
responsibilities are well spread out.
(1125)
The culture portfolio has undergone two major
reorganizations since June 1993; things are getting more and
more complicated, the number of players keeps increasing, and
jurisdictional overlap is getting worse. The government must
have followed an increasingly popular rule: Why simplify when
you can make things more complicated and a little more
expensive? A highly centralizing Canadian Heritage.
To say the least, the Canadian government has obviously
decided to make this Department of Canadian Heritage the main
instrument to promote Canadian values and it will also
encourage the whole country to fully participate in that exercise.
But what about the distinct character of Quebec's culture and
what about the sectors which are under exclusive provincial
jurisdiction according to the Constitution of 1867? The bill is
totally silent on that. The government is deliberately trying to
hide that reality. The old centralizing reflex of the federal
government is still just as strong. The government persists in
trying to fool Canadians and Quebecers. Obviously, this new
department tries to bury the specific character of Quebec's
culture by progressively diluting it in a hypothetical Canadian
culture which is, would you believe, unique and multicultural.
Make no mistake about it: The mandate of the Department of
Canadian Heritage is twofold. Indeed, it must create from
scratch an artificial Canadian identity based on Canada's
multi-ethnic mosaic and, consequently, that identity must be
multicultural. However, that identity and that feeling of
belonging based on bilingualism and multiculturalism sounds
hollow to Quebecers.
That double mandate goes totally against Quebec's
fundamental interests, since it rejects the distinct and specific
character of Quebec's culture. The hon. member for Outremont
talked about complementarity, but he should have used the word
overlapping.
Such is the new federal cultural policy: A policy aimed at
levelling out everything with a steamroller!
On June 21, the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata
said in this House, and I quote: ``The concept of Canadian
identity does not include the Quebec identity. In fact, its purpose
is to assimilate or even deny it''.
The new Canadian multicultural identity which the
government is trying to impose is in fact a ploy to acculturate
Quebecers. Even worse is the fact that it will not slow down the
growing assimilation of French speaking people who live
outside Quebec.
In the promotion of this glorious Canadian multicultural
mosaic, the government is rather quick to forget the concept of
two founding nations. The Liberals, both as party and
government, recognize the first nations but do not recognize the
Quebec nation. As I said: If there is an Acadian community,
there is also a Quebec nation. In June, the current Prime
Minister stated, regarding the operations of CBC, that there is an
act regulating these operations and that he would ask the
corporation to comply with it.
Among the requirements contained in this legislation, there is
an obligation to inform people of the benefits related to our
country. However, Canada is not the only one financing CBC.
Quebec also pays its fair share, but has hardly any say in the
administrative decisions of that federal institution.
Let us not forget that, in recent years, numerous regional TV
stations in Quebec, including Rimouski, Matane and Sept-Îles,
had to shut down their operations. In addition to being
underprivileged in terms of resource allocation, Quebec is about
to absorb more than its fair share of budget restrictions. For
example, Prime Time News, the 9 p.m. TV newscast on the CBC,
has an annual budget of $15 million, or $60,000 per show. By
comparison, the SRC budget for Le Téléjournal and Le Point in
Quebec barely exceeds $8 million.
7286
In a brief submitted yesterday to the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage, Mrs. France Dauphin, from the Coalition for
the Defense of the French CBC network, the raised a number of
issues. For example, investment in programs per hour of
broadcast time has increased by approximately $7,000 as far as
the English network is concerned, but only marginally in the
case of the French network. In just five years, from 1987 to
1992, investment rose from $30,500 to $37,500 at the CBC
while rising from $17,500 to $18,300 at SRC. In other words, a
mere five per cent increase for the French network, as compared
to a 20 per cent increase for the English network. What does this
mean? It will become obvious later.
(1130)
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has made strategic
choices that favoured the English network programming over
that of the French network. These choices were made in spite of
the objective the CRTC had set for the CBC in February 1987,
i.e. to strike a fair and equitable balance between production,
distribution and the scheduling of regional and network
programs, on both networks.
In addition, over $380 million were recently invested in
building new headquarters in Toronto. Jean-François Lisée
wrote in Le Tricheur that we can see how, in spite of Trudeau's
efforts to attach a Canadian identity to Quebecers, the
inclination to go the opposite way is strong and resists the
hazards of election policy. In 1990, 59 per cent of the people of
Quebec perceived themselves as Quebecers first, 28 per cent as
French Canadians and nine per cent as Canadians.
In fact, it is normal for Canada to describe itself more and
more as an English-speaking multicultural entity in an attempt
to differentiate itself from its American neighbour.
At the same time, it is not considered either normal or
legitimate by this centralizing administration for Quebec-a
clearly defined nation, the cultural vitality of which is
recognized around the world, a truly distinct nation on the basis
of its specific culture and its language among other things-to
promote its own culture and specificity. It does not require a
constitutional amendment to do so.
Finally, the multicultural Canadian identity. The issue of
multiculturalism, which is to say the least debatable, must not
be overlooked.
Professor Claude Corbo, dean of the Université du Québec in
Montreal, concludes it is a failure. According to Corbo, the
solicitude shown by the federal government for ethnic
communities is suspicious. He says that such a policy could well
exacerbate the minorization or the trivialization of the Quebec
identity.
The fact of the matter is that, in Quebec, the principle of
ethnic diversity must center around the French dimension of our
culture which is present in all of our institutions and serves as a
basis for Quebec's specificity. Above all however, structures are
required to facilitate the integration of immigrants into their
host society.
So, I intend to support the amendment put forth by my hon.
colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata, asking for the bill to be
withdrawn and deferred to the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to address the House in relation to
Bill C-53 and the amendment put forward by my colleague from
the Bloc. I am supporting the amendment but for very different
reasons from those put forward by the Bloc Quebecois.
Apparently the operative word in the whole bill is
reorganization, but in light of recent events perhaps the
operative word we should be discussing this morning is
resignation.
It appears the minister in charge of the Department of
Canadian Heritage tabled a letter this morning which indicates
he had approached the CRTC concerning specific licensing of a
special language radio program. The fact that the document was
stamped with the word ``intervention'' causes great concern.
The fact that the letter was written on the minister's letterhead
also causes great concern.
I join with the many Canadians who last night and this
morning called for the minister's resignation. It is unfortunate
to see this type of intervention in a quasi-judicial branch under
the minister's control. I hope he will reconsider his decision to
stay on as minister and will do the honourable thing and step
aside.
As has been stated by my colleague for Calgary-Southeast,
the bill should be renamed the special interest funding bill
because that will be the effect of the legislation. Bill C-53 will
create a ministry comprised of all the odds and ends of the
government intervention in Canadian culture under a minister
whose sole responsibility is to dole out handfuls of cash to
whichever groups the Liberal government has decided to favour.
(1135 )
The scope of this ministry would be large and sprawling with
at least 24 areas of responsibility that include-now hang on to
your hats: the Canada Council; the CBC; Telefilm Canada; the
Museum of Civilization across the river; the Museum of Nature;
and the CRTC which I have spoken about. Also included are: the
National Archives; the National Arts Centre; the National
Battlefields Commission; the National Film Board; the National
Gallery; the National Library; the Museum of Science and
Technology; the Public Service Commission; the Advisory
Council on the Status of Women, as well as Status of Women
Canada; amateur sports and official games; official languages;
Parks Canada; Historic Sites and Monuments; Canadian Race
7287
Relations Foundation; Canadian Heritage Languages Institute;
multiculturalism; and copyright.
This is an unruly collection of agencies which has been
lumped together arbitrarily. It truly is the ministry of lost souls,
a ministry put together consisting of many irrelevant and
outdated agencies with nowhere else to go. That being said,
there are some valid reasons for the government to have a role in
a select few of those areas outlined. However in the majority of
cases those functions could be performed more effectively in
either the private sector or by individual Canadians and private
organizations.
All this government intervention costs Canadian taxpayers
over $4.4 billion. We have put forward constructive suggestions
that would save over $1.6 billion in program spending alone.
Once the spinoff reductions in the bureaucracy and overhead are
factored in the savings could go much higher.
I want to focus the remainder of my remarks today on the
multicultural funding programs within the department. My
colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam asked the government
for a list of multicultural grants given in 1993. What she
received was astounding. It was a 703-page document listing
over 1,300 separate grants totalling over $25 million. Most of
these grants are questionable. I will mention one or two which I
think my constituents in Kindersley-Lloydminster would be
very concerned to discover that their hard earned tax dollars
have gone to pay for.
One grant was to the Toronto Arts Council. It received
$25,000 for phase two of a national forum on cultural equity in
Toronto as well as the training of a pool of cultural equity
consultants. What in the world does cultural equity have to do
with reality? What does it have to do with the real world? Also,
the Folk Arts Council of St. Catharines Multicultural Centre
received $28,000 for a community needs assessment. The
council was to carry out a community needs assessment and
prepare a strategic plan.
It really makes one wonder what the priorities of this
government are when it would support initiatives like those
when the health care system is starved for funds. We are closing
hospitals in Saskatchewan in part because the federal share of
health care funding is being so drastically reduced.
A few months ago I received notice of an application for one
of these grants from within my own province of Saskatchewan. I
was sent a letter from the Ukrainian Canadian Congress,
Saskatchewan Provincial Council asking for a grant of $45,000.
The money was to help perform a needs assessment study
intended to determine the following four things.
First is that access to information about government
departments, agencies and services is available to Ukrainian
seniors. Second is the development of outreach programs to
address specific health care and sociocultural needs, interesting.
The
third one is a real winner. Can we believe this? It is for the
development of seniors advocacy and lobbying skills; $45,000
to teach seniors how to lobby the government. The seniors I
know are very intelligent. I do not think they need that kind of
education. Fourth is another lulu. It is to develop a model for
ethnocultural wellness. Why in heaven's name do we need a
grant for Ukrainian seniors to help them develop a model for
ethnocultural wellness?
This is quite amusing. The NDP jumped on the special interest
bandwagon immediately. The member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake wrote to me and implored me to
support such a giveaway. So much for the NDP discovering its
roots and returning to reality.
I wrote to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the minister who
is under so much criticism today, to inform him that I did not
support the approval of that application. I did so for three main
reasons.
First, I reject the premise that health care needs should be met
on the basis of ethnicity. If a senior citizen in Canada or any
citizen for that matter is in need of health care services those
services should be available on the basis of need, not based on
any ethnocultural criteria. If you are sick or you break your leg
on the job, it does not matter if you are a Canadian of Ukrainian,
Polish, Chinese or Norwegian descent, I would think the doctor
is going to treat your case in pretty much the same way.
(1140)
I can see no reason for special health care for Ukrainians.
Most of the Canadians of Ukrainian descent who I know would
be deeply offended to learn they were being categorized as a
special case. They are proud Canadians, proud of their culture
and very capable of looking after their needs and interests
without the paternalistic help of the government.
Second, giving people tax dollars to teach them how to lobby
for more tax dollars is not effective stewardship of Canadians'
tax money. Unfortunately the government does this sort of thing
all the time, but I would not and I will not endorse this activity.
Third, I felt that the $45,000 the Ukrainian Canadian
Congress was asking for would have been put to much better use
if it were spent on health care in general. This way it would
benefit all senior citizens, in fact all Canadians in Saskatchewan
and the rest of Canada regardless of ethnicity.
The minister's office was kind enough to phone me and let me
know that the grant was being approved anyway. This is one
more example where the government makes a show of involving
individual MPs but goes ahead and does what it wants in any
case.
7288
I am curious as to why the minister approved the grant. It
may be the minister feels there is some legitimate reason that
Canadians of varying ethnic backgrounds need different health
care services. Maybe he thinks that. It may be the minister feels
that giving people tax money so they can lobby for more tax
money is an effective spending restraint.
Perhaps the minister is naive, but I believe the objective here
is more politically motivated. It is clear that all these special
interest and lobby group grants are being done in a crass old
style politics attempt to buy the support of Canadians with their
own money. It is the old politics.
In fact the entire Department of Canadian Heritage is nothing
more than an entrenchment of special interest funding and
Liberal giveaways. That is why I am supporting the amendment
to send the subject matter to the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage. In the committee perhaps the wheat can be
separated from the chaff. Perhaps the government can get out of
the business and be told to get out of the business of designing
culture and buying support with other people's money, often
with their own money. We can save the taxpayers of Canada a lot
of money in the process.
There has been a lot of talk about Reform versus the status
quo. I appeal to members and say that status quo multicultural
policy cheapens our rich and diverse culture. The Reform
position of placing the onus on lower levels of government,
private associations and individuals to preserve and promote
their cultural heritage deepens and ensures the future of our rich
and diverse culture. Let us deepen rather than cheapen the
multicultural nature of Canada.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, how
ironic that today is the day we are looking at the reorganization
of this department, particularly in light of the allegations that
have been made against the minister of this department. I once
had a boss who told me that a fish always rots from the head
down. Today we should see a reorganization of the department
starting at the top.
Last spring I sat in on the committee on Canadian heritage. I
sat 10 feet away from the minister when he told us that agencies
like the CRTC are to be at arm's length from the government. He
has said it on countless occasions and now we are going to make
him live up to his words.
Implicit in that letter he sent no matter what he says because
he is a minister of the crown is the fact that he is the one who
approves along with cabinet orders in council for the positions
on the CRTC. His department sets the guidelines. His
department sets the budget for the CRTC.
(1145)
I remind the minister and the members across the way that it
was not long ago when the hon. member for Sherbrooke was
facing the same sort of situation. The leader of the Conservative
Party was facing the same situation and Liberals across the way
screamed for his head. They got it. They should have. Now they
should hold themselves to the same standards at least of the
Mulroney government, a government that did not have very high
standards.
I encourage members across the way to get to their feet and
tell the Prime Minister in no uncertain terms that this is
absolutely not acceptable. I encourage them to move today
while they still have a chance to cut their losses and ensure that
no more damage is done to the credibility of the government.
That is at the top of the department. I want to move through
the department now and talk about some other issues. When we
look at all the issues that are within that department;
multiculturalism, CBC, status of women, the Canadian Heritage
Languages Institute, the National Film Board, there are so many
targets. It is an embarrassment of riches. So many boondoggles,
so much waste, so little time.
I want to talk in general about Canadian heritage and how it
protects Canadian artists and the whole idea of government
intervention in the artistic community. This is a relatively new
occurrence in western civilization, to have a government
involved in protecting particular artists, choosing some and
saying they are worthy of the support of the government while
others are not. In ancient times when patrons regularly
supported artists, those artists were at least accountable to that
patron. If they did not produce art work it was guaranteed they
would not be supported again by that particular patron. Such is
not the case in Canada.
For instance, the Canada Council uses peer juries to select
which artists should be worthy of support by the government.
This is a closed system. It is like a bell jar, the jar they use in
scientific experiments. There is no accountability to the public,
the people who are paying the money. At the risk of repeating
what I said the other day in a member's statement, they ``breathe
each other's air''. We do not get input from regular people about
what constitutes real art.
It is well and fine for artists to produce art for their own
pleasure but it should be at their own expense, not the expense of
Canadian taxpayers.
Who does not stop and wonder about the huge distortion that
government intervention in the arts community has had after
they tour the National Gallery. I have talked on this issue before
7289
but I must repeat what I have stated because it is so utterly
unbelievable.
I remember distinctly the first time I went to the National
Gallery. I was impressed with some of the art work. There were
pieces of art work from classical artists which are universally
accepted as great art. That rightfully belongs in a national
gallery.
I remember like it was yesterday walking into a huge room
and seeing in the corner boxes of Brillo pads stacked to the
ceiling. This was not a supply room. This was a display of art,
believe it or not, in a corner, brightly coloured boxes of Brillo
pads.
In another room there was what I thought was some
construction in progress. It was carpet underlay lying in the
middle of the floor. This was a work of art according to the
National Gallery. It was paid for by Canadian taxpayers. This
piece of art, if you want to call it that, was called ``256 pieces of
felt'' and it was a pile in the middle of the floor.
Another room had bricks lying on the floor in a line coming
out from the wall-
Mr. Strahl: At least they were in a line.
Mr. Solberg: ``At least they were in a line'' the hon. member
says. This was also art work.
If these people want to do this for their own pleasure, fine. If
they want to put some underlay in the middle of their living
room floor and marvel at it, that is great. We support that. On the
other hand, if they expect Canadian taxpayers to shell out money
so this can be displayed in the National Gallery it is crazy. The
people are fed up with the waste in government. If it wants some
areas where it can cut it can start with Canadian heritage. There
is no end of waste in that department.
(1150)
I remember reading about Charles Dickens. In England in
those days there was no support from the government for artists.
One fall that great writer was pressed to come up with a new
book because he had a large family to support. Christmas was
coming and he needed some revenue. Therefore, this prolific
writer, who was prolific probably because he knew that if he
wanted to survive he had to produce these works of art, was
facing this Christmas deadline and knew he had to get something
out so he could have an income. Faced with those pressures and
faced with the fact that he had to be excellent in what he
produced if he wished to sell his book to have some money, he
produced one of the great classics of all time ``A Christmas
Carol''.
I do not see why the principles of that time cannot apply today.
Why do we have to have the Canada Council involved at every
step of the way? People who have no business publishing a book
because their work is not worthy are getting grants from the
Canadian taxpayer to do it. That is crazy. I again urge the
government to look at all these areas where it intervenes into the
artistic community, to get out of there and allow real artists to
blossom and do their thing.
We have great artists in the country from every area of the
artistic community. They will prosper irrespective of whether or
not they get grants from the Canada Council or protection from
the Ministry of Canadian Heritage. We do not need to worry
about them. We do not need to feel that we are somehow inferior.
We have shown time and again that we have people who can
compete in the international community with respect to the
whole Department of Canadian Heritage and artistic
accomplishments.
We have a deficit of $40 billion a year, a debt of $535 billion a
year and the high taxes that go with that. Canadians used to have
some disposable income to spend on art. By running up the
deficit because of this ridiculous boondoggle of handing out
grants, now they have less disposable income to go out and buy
the art that we would all like to see produced. The government
across the way is therefore cutting off access that Canadian
people have to art.
I urge the government not only to reorganize the department
but to cut spending dramatically and reorganize it right at the top
starting today with the minister.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted
to also add a few comments, thoughts and ideas on the bill.
I cannot help but wonder why it is that we feel it is a legitimate
role of government to pluck the pockets of the taxpayers by the
coercive process called taxation without giving them a choice.
We are forcing them against their will to support any and every
cause which some bureaucrat or some deputy minister or some
head of a department decides is worthy.
My hon. colleague from Medicine Hat has just gone through
some of these ridiculous decisions which have absolutely no
defence in terms of representing the mainstream of Canadian
society.
I am one of those proud Canadians who was born here. I am a
first generation Canadian. My parents did not speak English. My
first language was neither English nor French. I could be called
one of those ethnic immigrants although I was born in
Saskatchewan, a point of which I am justly proud.
(1155 )
When we were growing up we had absolutely no access to
public funds. As a matter of fact, my grandfather would have
dutifully declined if it had been offered because he firmly
believed that it was his responsibility to provide for and look
after his family.
My grandfather and his sons, my dad and his brothers worked
out at a very low wage in order to keep their identity and their
7290
pride. I am very happy that is my heritage. I learned too that hard
work and self-effort was required in order to get ahead.
When different people are able, by the spending power of the
federal government, to merely access money at will and use it
however they wish without accountability, whether or not it has
any measure of support out there in the public, promotes and
extends a standard of dependence. There is no excuse for that in
the long run.
We are sometimes criticized in the Reform Party for harping
on the debt. I cannot think of anything that is more important.
Whether it is an individual, a family, a business, a province, a
municipality or a country, we need to be sound financially if we
want to be sound in other ways.
This morning I could not help but think of this when one of my
colleagues from the Bloc was speaking. Perhaps part of the
reason for the desire of divorce is the fact that we have such
tremendous fiscal mismanagement. I read in a book not long ago
that fiscal mismanagement and debt is one of the leading causes
of divorce in families. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why
Bloc members are representing a lack of trust and a lack of
consideration for remaining in our Confederation.
We need to start looking at the use of our federal moneys
much more carefully than we do. This whole department is a
sinkhole of money that does not go anywhere. I cannot
overemphasize this any more than I just have.
We have the problem of grants to different societal groups. I
think about the past generations. In my area there are a number
of Ukrainians and German speaking people as well as English
speaking people in great numbers. Most of them, when they
came out west, were independent, rugged pioneers. They would
not accept handouts.
We keep talking about how we want to be tolerant and loving,
we want to be multicultural. I agree with that profoundly. We
need to reach out and touch each other, as the good phrase goes.
We are building resentment by these programs. One group asks
for a grant and they get so much. Another group asks for a grant,
but because they do not have as powerful a connection to the
decision makers, the grant is less or perhaps is even denied.
This can only produce one result. One group now resents the
other group. The only real way of having a level playing field
among all these different ethnic groups and promoting true
ethnicity in our country is to treat them the same. Allow them to
fund themselves at whatever rate they want to. Frankly most of
the practice of ethnic culture does not require any money.
I was proud the other day to attend the meeting in this city
with the Greeks, the AHEPA, their educational society.
(1200 )
They had put on a dinner and they wanted to inform us about
their society. A wonderful thing happened. This was a formal
occasion and those who could afford it-of course I was not
among them-had tuxedos with black ties. It was a very elegant
situation.
Suddenly some of those people gathered around the piano.
There was one person there playing piano and two or three
people came and started singing. It did not take long until there
were about 20 people crowded around the piano. In this formal
setting this little informal occasion had arisen.
We did not need a federal grant for that. That happened. It was
spontaneous. It was genuine. It was real. I liked it. That is the
kind of thing we need to promote. The federal government
should be in the role of guaranteeing the freedom to speak in the
country any language we want, guaranteeing the freedom to
practise our culture any way we can legally. We ought not to be
in the business of taking money and transferring it from the
taxpayers, often against their will. We know there is an
increasing resentment and a decreasing support for this
involuntary taxation.
We can help renew that trust of the Canadian people by
reducing the amount of money that we take from them in order to
promote and give grants to people without just cause.
I want to say something about the CBC. My hon. colleague
from the Bloc made mention of funding and that it was not
equitable between French and English. I wrote it down while he
was speaking that in the area whereof I speak, and this is just a
statistical fact, the English speaking people in Alberta
outnumber all of the others.
We also have a great number of people who speak Ukrainian.
There are German people and I believe the French place fourth,
although they may now be even lower in numbers because of
quite a bit of immigration from the Orient in recent years.
We have a French television channel there, CBC. Most of the
time it broadcasts the test pattern and plays nice music. I admit I
sometimes watch it because I like the background music that is
on while it displays the test pattern. That is other than the times
it just has the 1,000 kilohertz signal.
We fund that. I do not know how new my statistics are,
probably two or three years ago, but only about one per cent of
Albertans speak French, and of those if I remember correctly
only one-quarter spoke French but not English.
If our objective is to communicate with one another it is only
important that we speak the same language. How I wish I could
speak French so that I could debate and enter into discourse with
7291
my colleagues to my right here. I wish I knew that language.
Unfortunately when I was a youngster I did not learn it and I am
discouraged at trying now. It is difficult. It is so important for us
to be able to communicate with one another. Spending federal
money on promoting French broadcasting of the test pattern in
Alberta makes no sense, absolutely none.
I would like to see those funds, if continued to be expended, to
be used in an area where at least the people hearing the
programming can understand it and benefit from it.
It is atrocious that when we have television and radio stations
that make a profit-I am told by some of my contacts that radio
these days is very competitive-we need to subsidize the CBC at
the rate of over $1 billion per year. Surely we can get
management in there that will produce a profit for the Canadian
taxpayers and not be a continual drain.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the time to debate this reorganizational bill today.
(1205 )
I must start by mentioning what some of my colleagues have
already brought to the attention of the House. I should bring to
the attention of those listening to this debate and watching on
television to the crisis within the department, starting right at
the top.
In Quorum I read a couple of days ago, although I do not
remember the exact quote, where the minister said that we
would now see a whole new way of protecting Canadian culture.
A couple of days later we find out that the whole new way of
protecting that culture involves personal letters from the
minister on behalf of friends to the CRTC, an independent
quasi-judicial body.
That whole new way of protecting Canadian culture will not
wash in the House or with the Canadian people. It did not wash
with past ministers who tried that. We are probably seeing the
first serious case that at the minimum the ethics commissioner
should investigate. Preferably the honourable thing will happen
here in the next few hours and we will see a minister step
forward with his resignation. It is unfortunate but I think to clear
the air this will be necessary.
What is the cultural background of the country? We on the
foreign affairs committee, of which I was member for a few
months, found this to be a very controversial issue. Some would
bring up the idea that culture is a personal thing, that it follows
our actions, that it is a legacy and the heritage we pass down to
the next generation. Other people would argue that culture only
thrives when the government is behind it and spends money on it
and forces it, when the government regulates it and decides
which culture is good and which is bad.
The Bloc Quebecois brings the issue up very forcefully that
the Canadian federal government has very little reason to be
involved in promoting and selecting the culture Canadians
would enjoy.
This is not a job for the federal government. The federal
government's job is to protect against discrimination, to ensure
that people are not discriminated against because of their ethnic
background, not persecuted or prosecuted unduly because of
their choices.
If individuals, lower levels of government, the provinces and
other people and private organizations want to enhance culture,
then by all means that is where it should be done. For the federal
government to spend billions of dollars on what its idea of
culture should be does not wash with the Bloc Quebecois and it
does not wash with me and the Reform Party. Culture is not
something a bureaucrat can choose from.
The Canadian film board has put forward several pieces of
questionable, dubious trash and these are now available to the
school boards. I told witnesses who came before the committee:
``If you ever got out of the cloistered halls where you are making
these decisions and to Fraser Valley East where I live and told
the citizens there who do not understand this difficult issue that
what they need is a government grant to the Canadian film board
to show how lesbian relationships are the way of the future and
that this is an excellent thing to promote, the citizens would
want to do the old tar and feather routine''. They would say that
if somebody wanted to put out that film, by all means. There are
probably thousands of those films put out every year. Is it the job
of the federal government to support that? The answer of course
is absolutely not.
We are going in the hole financially-in many ways in the
country but financially especially-$110 million per day. How
can a government that says it is trying to wrestle the deficit and
debt to the ground continue to spend money on discretionary
spendings when some priority items in the country are not being
funded properly?
It asks students to take on more student loans because it has
run out of money for them. There is still money for the Canadian
heritage society and every other boondoggle in the country, but
no more money for students.
(1210 )
We tell the provinces that they are going to have to cough up a
bigger percentage of the health care costs, but we still have
money to expand the museum in one of the minister's
departments next year. We do not have any money to increase
the basic pension requirements but we have money for the CBC
to the tune of $1 billion a year.
People are rejecting that wholesale, as they well should. The
other day I told members a story and I know how much they
enjoyed it; we had laughs over that story. I would like to tell
7292
another story. This one is not quite so funny but it is a true story.
Again it is a very personal story involving my father.
My father was born into a community that looked after its own
cultural background. It was a Swedish community back in the
prairies in Minnedosa, Manitoba. Many a happy hour I spent
back there visiting my aunts, uncles and other relatives. It was
basically a Swedish community. It did the Swedish thing. It still
has pickled herring and a few things from the Swedish past. I
enjoy some of the heritage on that side of the family.
My dad's dad, my grandfather, died when dad was only six
years old. Really the cultural things became very important. The
community things, the family things became very important
because that is where my father was raised. He had no father. In
those days he had to pick up the support where he could. He got
the support from the community.
When my dad was 17 years old and the second world war was
on, he left that community and went to Winnipeg to enlist. He
was only 17 years old. He was not old enough legally to sign up
but being a big, strapping boy from the prairies and probably
well fed-maybe underfed, I do not know-he looked the part
but the enlistment guy told him he could not sign up and that he
needed his mother's signature.
Dad took the forms and went out around the block to the back
of the building, forged his mother's signature, went around to
another door and came back in and enlisted as a 17-year-old.
There is a whole other story that goes with that but the point
about the cultural thing in this is that dad never talked much
about the army days. He spent a couple of years in. He did not
have to go overseas and he made it through those war years okay,
but the thing that stuck out in his mind and the only thing that
dad talked about was that he did not think he did a very brave
thing. It was what millions of Canadians were prepared to do.
The form on which he had to forge his mother's signature
asked what ethnic background he was. This was back in 1943.
Dad said that he just put a big line through there and said: ``I am
Canadian. That is what I am. I am not a hyphenated Canadian. I
am not less a Canadian. I am not a half Canadian or anything
else. I am a Canadian''.
When people have a strong sense of their Canadianism, what
they are, they do not need government subsidies. My father
certainly did not. People in my community certainly do not.
An hon. member over here mentioned a case a while ago about
someone playing a piano who looked up and said: ``Does
anybody happen to know this song?''. Out of the crowd came
about 40 or 50 people singing it in German. I do not even know
what the song is because I do not speak German but they sang a
song in German. Then the crowd went back out, proud of its
heritage.
In Vancouver there will be the Chinatown festivities and so
on. There will be the dragon dances and all that kind of thing.
That has been going on for decades and decades without
government help. When culture is part of a person they say: ``I
am a proud Canadian. I happen to have some of my background,
my traditions, my heritage''.
Members will find Canadians say: ``I do not need government
support for that. I am a proud Canadian. I have my own culture.
It is my business. The government should not intrude into my
life or dictate what I can watch on television or listen to on the
radio. It is my business. Stay out of it''.
When there are billions and billions of dollars involved, it is
time that the Canadian government decided what its priorities
are. The priorities are not in this heritage department. The
priorities are health, pensions and the best education for our
next generation. It is not the boondoggles that we see time after
time in the Canadian heritage department.
(1215)
I am disappointed to find that in this reorganization plan there
is not a bottom line that reads: ``This department will be
severely curtailed''. Unless that is in there I cannot believe that
any reorganizational plan will be an improvement. The first
reorganization of course as I mentioned earlier should be a
change in ministers. Then we would see how Canadian heritage
should be maintained in the hearts and lives of individual
Canadians.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise today to speak on Bill C-53,
a reorganization bill.
I would like to follow up on what my colleagues on this side of
the House have been saying and relate it back to the election of
one year ago when I ran successfully against a Liberal. I heard
the words of the Liberals during that election campaign, things
like: ``This government, a Liberal government, will be different
than a Conservative government. It will be more accountable''.
They said they would be more accountable.
Today the headline reads ``Minister aids radio licence bid at
CRTC''. That is what we see today in our headlines. An apology
from the minister is not good enough. The minister says that all
he did was act as a member of Parliament. A minister of the
crown is not an ordinary member of Parliament.
In March he wrote a letter to Keith Spicer asking him to give
due consideration to an application for a 24-hour Greek
language radio station. Also, which he did not mention this
morning in his statement, he asked Mr. Spicer to keep him
abreast of developments, adding: ``Please do not hesitate to
contact me if you require any further information''.
7293
If this is not interference, I do not know what is. This is
blatant interference. I would also like to mention that the letter
sent back to the minister from the commission's secretary
general said: ``Thank you for your letter of support''.
One thing everyone in this business should learn is
perception. Perception is everything. If the perception at the
CRTC was that this minister was supporting and if the general
public and the people of Canada also feel strongly that the
minister was supporting then the minister has an obligation to do
the honourable thing.
Tomorrow in the House we will be debating Bill C-210, a
recall bill. If this minister and government do not bring
accountability to the House, members on this side will certainly
try to bring accountability here by introducing such legislation
as recall. We know that we will receive some support from that
side of the House. I have talked to members on that side who are
very supportive of this. I hope the minister will do the
honourable thing.
With regard to the bill, I have a few comments I would like to
make, in particular about bilingualism and official languages. I
get a little frustrated when I find out that the reason
governments, including the government, sometimes spend
money is to promote particular groups or particular people in
this country. I know the member is very interested in this
subject.
(1220 )
I am going to talk about the Department of National Defence
in the province of Quebec for a couple of moments. The
Department of National Defence feels it is very important to
encourage francophones to join the Canadian Armed Forces, in
the navy. In order to do that the government felt it was important
to build a fleet school in Quebec City. It spent millions and
millions of dollars on a fleet school. The reason for this, and
officials from the Department of National Defence have been
quite open, is that it wants more francophones in the Canadian
Armed Forces. Why spend millions and millions of dollars on
that item? Not only is it building a fleet school there, but four of
the twelve new coastal patrol vessels will be in Quebec City.
We have the largest coastline in the world to protect and we
are going to have four of our coastal patrol vessels, on which we
are again spending millions of dollars, in Quebec City with a
fleet school.
Why do we not promote people from the province of Alberta?
How about farmers in Alberta? Maybe we should promote them
being in the navy. Why not build a fleet school on the Bow
River? Maybe that is a good idea. Maybe we should do that in
order to encourage Alberta farmers to join the navy.
I get laughs from all sides of the House. They are right. It is
absolutely ridiculous that we are doing that. People in Quebec,
Alberta, Newfoundland and across the country have the
opportunity to join the Canadian Armed Forces, and in
particular the navy if they want to, but we spend millions and
millions of dollars to build a fleet school in Quebec City.
I might point out that the citizens of Quebec City do not even
support it. The mayor of Quebec City at one time said that it did
not even fit in with the landscape of the city. That is absolutely
absurd. The people of Canada will not put up with this nonsense
any more.
Official languages in the country, yes. There should be
freedom of speech. There is no question about it. It should be
respected in the House of Commons and the other place as well.
However, we are spending millions and billions. We cannot even
get the actual figures for bilingualism. It is said to be $310
million a year. That is absolutely absurd. It is probably closer to
a billion or more dollars per year that is spent on bilingualism in
the country. It has been proven it does not work. It creates walls
and it divides people. It has not worked and it will not work. We
have to move toward something new, a new approach, a new way
of doing things to respect freedom of speech.
Multiculturalism is something that I feel was created with all
the best intentions in the world. They wanted to bring people
from other countries into Canada in the hope that it would bring
people closer together.
It has put people in separate little rooms of the country. It has
separated us all. It has divided us and split us.
Mr. Milliken: Nonsense.
Mr. Hart: The hon. member says no, no.
Mr. Milliken: I said ``nonsense''. Quote me correctly.
Mr. Hart: It gives specific ethnic groups pockets of money
that other Canadians cannot have. It is not right.
The country should be looking at ensuring equality. That is
what the government should be doing. It should not have a
department of multiculturalism. It should be working against
discrimination, ensuring that all Canadians, regardless of race,
religion and gender, are equal. It does not matter. This is a
tremendous waste of money.
In closing I will say that hon. members on the other side of the
House are not stupid; they are just wrong. They are simply
wrong.
(1225 )
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
add to what some of my colleagues have had to say here today on
culture and heritage.
I have a deep appreciation for Canada's culture and our
heritage. I have many generations of ancestors in Canada. They
started out in the maritimes and came to British Columbia over a
period of 150 years. Contrary to what some might say or think, I
believe that Reformers and Canadians in general have a deep
7294
appreciation of our heritage. I believe that Canadians for the
most part like art, films, and books. They like many of the things
our minister of cultural heritage is promoting.
Most of us express our desire and enjoyment of our culture
and art through our personal decisions. We make decisions as to
what we are going to buy, which art for our homes and which
books to read. We visit art galleries when we choose. In general
through the marketplace we express our appreciation with our
money in the forums where we feel that it is appropriate to do so.
The operative word here is marketplace. The marketplace is
the proper place to determine whether art is saleable, whether it
is desirable and whether the people who are creating it should be
supported.
What we have in Canada is government directed heritage and
cultural policy that ignores the market altogether. The
government funded cultural community needs taxpayers'
money to survive because it cannot convince people to buy its
products on their own. It is not successful in the marketplace.
If writers want my money and the Canadian taxpayers' money
they can write books that Canadian taxpayers will buy. If artists
want my money they can create art that I and Canadian taxpayers
will buy. If film makers want my money they can create films
that I will pay money to see and they will therefore be
successful.
These people do not need to convince me to buy their art or
their books or pay to see their films. They can go to Ottawa and
convince the government to fund their projects and their
initiatives and I as a taxpayer along with millions of others from
coast to coast who do not agree with the kind of products these
people are producing are forced through a coercive taxation
system to support it in any event.
This is why we have a National Art Gallery that is full of
goofy paraphernalia that common sense Canadians would never
ever buy. We have so-called treasures in our National Art
Gallery. I come from the construction industry. People in the
construction industry tell me that the notorious painting ``Voice
of Fire'' could be created in about one-half day by a couple of
good painters.
An hon. member: Three minutes.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Three minutes with a spray gun. Yet the
government has been spending millions and millions of dollars
to acquire these goods and put them in our National Art Gallery.
We have at times hung paintings and writings on the walls of that
gallery that some Canadians would indeed believe to be
bordering on pornographic. They would not let their children
have these at home, yet they are confronted with them when they
visit our National Art Gallery.
Why? Because the elite have determined that this is good for
us without our consent. They take our tax dollars to support
these artists when clearly Canadians never would.
The Reform Party and I say it is time to get the government
out of the business of heritage, out of the business of culture and
let the marketplace establish what people want and what they do
not want.
(1230 )
It is very simple. If somebody produces something that has
value and is desirable, Canadians will buy it. But when we have
people who can go to the government, get grants and be funded
through a coercive taxation system with no regard for whether
Canadians actually want this paraphernalia, we are going to
have what we have right now, a tremendous waste of Canadian
taxpayers' money and a collection of what I consider to be, and I
think many people consider to be, nonsense in our National
Gallery.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
generally not considered an expert on culture and the heritage
department. I am a farmer from Saskatchewan. However I do
read. I do write. I do look at art. I do watch plays. I do watch
television and all the things that all Canadians do.
In this discussion we should remind ourselves that cultural
pursuits are an expression of all of society and they have always
had difficulty being recognized for what they are trying to do.
We have heard a number of speeches this morning stating that
if the market will not support it then it should not be produced.
Yet when I look back at my very modest understanding of the
history of artistic endeavour, I see a great many works that are
now considered to be the epitome of that genre of art. It would
not have been accepted by the market in the day it was produced.
It was very controversial and yet because the state or the church
was determined to pay the artist to do the work and support the
artist in his or her endeavour it was produced.
People asked why waste money painting the Sistine Chapel
ceiling, paying an artist for the years and years it takes to
produce that stuff. When it was finished the population was agog
because Michelangelo had painted some of the people without
as many clothes on as they thought there should be. While the
church and the Pope had financed the project, they did succumb
to popular pressure and have him come back and paint over some
parts of it.
However without the backing of the state or the church-in
that case the church was collecting money from all of the
population-without a firm commitment to that artist, we would
not know Michelangelo ever existed. He is still considered to be
one of the greatest painters and sculptors of all time.
7295
That is just one example. We have many in Canada to which
I am sure people in the artistic community could point. Because
most of my friends of the Reform Party are from western
Canada I would just mention the name William Kurelek
.Without some assistance from Canadian governments we
probably would not realize that William Kurelek was a great
talent in his own right. He was considered kind of a nut case
by his colleagues and the people who knew him, but some
people in the artistic community convinced others he should
receive financial support, so we got the paintings that he
produced in his lifetime.
We tend to think that Heritage Canada is only supporting
experimental art and playing with new ideas, that they support
exotica or things that are quite foolish. We have heard quite a lot
of some of those perceived to be foolish things. Not being
terribly modern and culturally aware, some of those seem a little
foolish to me as well, but we have to be prepared to make those
kinds of experiments if we are going to move forward as a
society.
As we have only eight to ten minutes each to speak I do not
want to spend too much time on this, but we should remind
ourselves that some of what Heritage Canada does with its
grants and its money is quite mundane. If we pulled back all the
support the department gives, even my friends in the Reform
Party would up on their feet crying about the interference that
had been precipitated by the pulling back of those funds.
(1235)
As an example, I have in my community a second newspaper
that started up in the last few years which portrays a very right
wing point of view. My friends in the Reform Party would love
the editorials. Basically the reason for the newspaper is to put
those editorials and those opinions in front of the general public
in that community. Because this lady has these extreme views
she has trouble getting advertisers to support the paper.
She wanted to set up a second paper and keep it going. She had
started one up in a neighbouring community which was in
danger of folding so she took over the management of it again. I
got a call from her to say she was having trouble getting the
postal subsidy needed to keep both newspapers going. This
comes from, guess where? Heritage Canada. As I recall it is
about 88 cents per paper per week. The paper cannot operate and
cannot circulate this other opinion in those communities without
the support of Heritage Canada.
While she is an avowed believer in letting the market be
determined, she was very concerned as well about the duality of
these arguments we get into and the fact that she might not be
able to get a grant from Heritage Canada because she was
starting up a second paper and policies were changing. This in
effect would be a restriction of freedom of speech. Freedom of
speech is only one forum of the freedom of expression our
societies and the tribes we have come from feel is the root of our
existence.
If we are going to have freedom of expression it has to go
beyond just producing newspapers with a point of view. It
ultimately has to include putting paintings on ceilings, even
though it was thought to be a stupid place to put a painting, and
living with the kind of criticism that even that glorious work in
the Sistine Chapel got when it was performed. Sometimes
backing off from criticism has happened, with a little paint here
and there to cover up what the general public is opposed to and
making adjustments but not by withdrawing all support from
society in general.
I hope in opposing the restructuring of Heritage Canada that
some of my friends in the House do not mean that all forms of
support would stop. Even as a group, we are not wise enough to
recognize a potential talent or a product of the artistic mind that
will fly and be famous for centuries.
One time as a farm boy I was able to get to Paris for a day or
two and go through the Louvre. There are many works I
remember of course. Everyone sees the ``Mona Lisa'' and
wonders at the Dutch masters and the works of the French, the
Spanish and the Italians. However, the one thing I personally
admired was some of the sculpture in stone from the early Greek
period. Some of this stuff weighs thousands of pounds. The art is
so great it appears as if these winged creatures will take off
momentarily. They look as light as a feather, they are ethereal.
They almost look like lace, but they are stone and weigh
thousands of pounds. Nobody knows who did that work. But we
still have it and we still admire it.
(1240 )
Some time thousands of years ago, some king or priest or
bishop or whoever helped to finance this work of art. It was
probably criticized by a few people in the street or maybe all the
people in the street as a waste of public funds for keeping this
poor sculptor in food and drink for the time it took him or her to
produce it. Nobody knows who produced it and yet millions
have appreciated the thought and the expertise and the feeling
that went with it.
To be so careful with our dollars and cents that we lose all
common sense has to be something we avoid. I hope for just a
few political moments, we will let common sense prevail and
not just follow public demand. The public demand to stop
spending is always there from the taxpayers' side of our psyche.
We also must remember we have more than that in our
individuality and in our group consciousness and in our group
needs. We
7296
must recognize that this also includes recognizing freedom of
expression and supporting it.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised
that this is a bill of such profound importance as I detect from
the opposite members.
I wanted to rise on Bill C-53 with a specific interest. The
interest is this. Why would the bill come to the House now? I
would like to ask that rhetorical question. Why is the bill in front
of us now?
I have listened to my Liberal colleagues speak very
eloquently about a fairly major review of much of the
government's operations. In my view the bill would fit very well
into a fairly significant review of those operations.
I looked actually for the department to give some specific
recognition that there is some controversy here. The controversy
has been heightened by the minister's actions. Those actions
might provide a lightning rod for the Canadian public in terms of
his department.
Why now? Why would the government bring in a bill on
multiculturalism before a major program review? I am not sure I
can answer that. I ask for some advice from my colleagues
across the way.
I listened just a moment ago to an eloquent discussion of how
the elites in our society should be the ones to provide our
cultural heritage for us. I reject that allegation. I listened to how
a king, a pope, a prince, someone with tremendous recognition
of value looked after the artistic community, looked after the
needs, wants and wishes of the artistic community.
I reflect on the individuals in our society today who are
pushing the cultural agenda. Who are those individuals? They
are individuals who have been elected to public office. Were
they elected to public office to produce artistic works, to decide
what had merit?
My constituents did not elect me to do that. They elected me
to provide some very specific leadership on issues that had
nothing to do with culture, nothing to do with language. They
asked me to come to Parliament to bring common sense to the
debate here. I do not see common sense well displayed by
individuals who say that the government should be the provider
of cultural direction. Elites should not decide what is good for
the public. The public should decide.
What will the bill not do? If I am going to criticize a bill, I
would like to criticize the things that it will not do and look for
some positives. It will not streamline the department. I see no
indication that there will be less administration nor do I see any
indication that it will downsize the department. I do not see
anything in the bill that will save the Canadian taxpayer money
and why would I want to see those things happen? Why would I
care if the department were streamlined, downsized and fiscally
responsible?
(1245)
I want that because I have come here hoping that our health
care system can be saved. I have put a very high priority on our
health care system. Looking at the health care system
throughout our country I ask: What is happening to it? I see
streamlining and downsizing. I see a decrease in administration.
I see hospital beds being closed. I see surgical operating room
time being diminished.
I look at those things and I ask: Where is the priority in our
country? Where is the priority that would allow a government to
put this department, no downsizing, no streamlining, no
decrease in administration, ahead of the health needs of
Canadians?
I look at the proportion of dollars that the party in government
puts toward health care. I have watched those funds drop in the
last 10 years. Federal government funding has gone from some
30 per cent of health care dollars down to 22 per cent and I am
sorry to report it is still falling. That is wrong.
If there were a prioritization of issues for the government, the
department would not have high priority. It should not have high
priority when we face the financial situation we are in today. I
call for and plead the government to change its priorities, to
actually reverse the momentum toward things like this that do
not have long term significance, that will not help the patient
with cancer and will not help the mother with a problem
pregnancy. It will do none of those things.
Where do I come from in a personal cultural sense? My own
background is one-half English, one-quarter Irish and
one-quarter Norwegian. I had a very close relationship with my
Norwegian grandma. I actually lived with her when I went to
university.
She expressed in a very interesting way how she maintained
her Norwegian background by saying: ``I maintained my
Norwegian background by my honesty. I did not come to Canada
to become a mini-Norwegian here; I came to Canada to become
an honest citizen of Canada''. She had a cute little poem which is
the only thing she reflected upon about her own particular
ancestry. She decried the idea that somebody should help her
look after her culture. ``I am a Canadian. I am a Canadian who
came via Oyen to Edmonton to be just that, a Canadian''.
I look at what I consider to be the scandal facing the
government today with this department and its minister. For
those watching on television, comments are coming from across
the way that there is no scandal here but I would like to reflect on
one precedent of scandal.
One precedent when the Liberals sat in opposition is as
follows: The member for Sherbrooke, the Minister of Justice at
the time, made a phone call to a judge. Members sitting on the
government side today called for that minister to resign. They
called for his resignation because of a conflict of interest. A
minister calling someone whom he had direct responsibility for
was a conflict of interest. The minister resigned. He did not
7297
want to resign. It would have looked better for him if he could
have said: ``I did not intend to influence the judge, I was just
representing a constituent''. I think that was one of the
comments I heard.
(1250)
Mr. Silye: This morning?
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Yes, it came to me clearly. And where do
we sit with this scandal today? A minister writes a letter to
somebody under his direct responsibility. He owes his job to the
minister. I see a straight line relationship there. Most Canadians
can understand that.
The minister has a direct responsibility, a direct
understanding of that responsibility. The minister should follow
the precedent that was established when the Liberals sat in
opposition and called for the resignation of a minister.
Mr. Milliken: Read the letters.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Now I hear there was a second letter
written which obviates all responsibility. I would ask for a
report on how soon that letter was written after the first.
Mr. Silye: Six months later.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Six months later could be called a
covering of the backside.
Mr. Silye: As soon as they knew the media was on it. As soon
as the media got word of it that letter went out.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Indeed that was my understanding.
Should the minister resign? The Canadian people really should
decide that. I wish there were a direct, specific mechanism for
ministerial recall as well as member of Parliament recall.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to address Bill C-53, the reorganization of the Department
of Canadian Heritage. I have two suggestions to make on this
bill.
First, the minister, or the new minister, should consider
eliminating funding for multiculturalism to achieve a savings of
$30 million to $40 million. Multiculturalism is creating
divisiveness in the country. It is creating confusion and it is
creating prejudice in the country. I will come back to this point
shortly. The second suggestion is that the Minister of Canadian
Heritage resign.
Going back to my first suggestion on multiculturalism, I am a
first generation immigrant of Hungarian parents born in
Vöcklabruck, Austria. We came here in 1951. I was close to six
years old. I am proud of my ethnic background. I am also proud
to be Canadian today. The fact that we came to a new country,
that we had to learn a new language and that we had to learn to
get along with people were all things which helped develop and
build my personal character and my outlook on life.
Some of the rules we had back then were a lot better than the
rules we have today. Many of the rules back then still allowed
for some prejudice, still allowed for some confusion, still
allowed for some divisiveness, but overall for all intents and
purposes immigrants were welcomed into the country.
Our current program of immigration which I do not want to
dwell on leads to multiculturalism and the funding for the
immigrants here. The various ethnocultural groups get funding
to represent their specific ethnic groups and they are not even
reaching out to the people they purport to represent.
There was a food fair in Ottawa about three or four months
ago. Various ethnic backgrounds and cultures were represented.
I attended because I like to see various heritages and cultures. I
like to try foods from different parts of the world as well.
As I was circulating and meeting people visiting the various
booths I came upon two different ethnic groups, one from
Columbia and one from Asia. As I talked to them I revealed that
I was a member of Parliament but I did not tell them that I was
also an immigrant. During the course of our conversation I
asked if they were associated with any of the ethnic groups and
they said no. I asked if the groups were helping them and they
said no.
The family who came here from Columbia worked part time.
They picked up any job they could. They went back to school
and got themselves re-educated as engineers. As a matter of fact
both of them work for the government. They have three children
8, 10 and 11 years old, who are presently going to school in
Ottawa. They are picked on and called names. The blatant
discrimination is obvious. The rest of the kids in school have the
impression they are being treated differently, that they are
getting something they should not be getting.
(1255)
This is what I mean by divisiveness and the confusion we are
creating. The intent of the program although it may have been
honourable and worth while has certainly deteriorated to a point
where it is not helping the ethnic groups that come here, it is
hurting them.
I really believe that funding to learn English is unnecessary.
Funding to have them retain the language of the country they left
is a complete waste of money. I still speak Hungarian. There was
a 10-year period when I never uttered one word in Hungarian
but I have retained and still remember quite a bit of it. I am not
as fluent as I should be but I am proud of the fact that I can still
speak it, that I am bilingual and do not speak just one language.
7298
Multiculturalism is not so much to save money but it is also
to start to respect immigrants who come here, to work with
them to fit into our society. Just throwing money at groups and
organizations is not necessarily the best way of doing it.
Some of the rules we apply to immigrants should be revisited.
Some of the rules we had in the 1950s and 1960s could probably
be reintroduced. Perhaps the government would like to strike a
committee. It likes to strike committees; it is up to about 25 now.
Perhaps it would like to strike number 26 and look into ways and
means of improving multiculturalism and immigration and
looking for ways and means not to just throw money at people
but to help them fit into society through better mechanisms.
The second suggestion I have for the Minister of Canadian
Heritage is that he resign. The gentleman has had this position
for a year. When he took his cabinet position he was told the
same thing all ministers of the crown are told when they swear
an oath of allegiance to uphold to the best of their ability their
responsibilities. They are briefed on what is proper behaviour
and proper conduct. They know full well when they accept that
job what lines they are not supposed to cross over, what
constitutes conflict of interest and what constitutes impropriety.
They are told all this and they accept the job knowing that if they
commit a serious mistake, they have no choice but to resign.
Using ministerial stationery the minister wrote to CRTC
chairman Keith Spicer last March asking him to ``give due
consideration to an application to start a 24 hour Greek language
radio station''. The minister also asked Spicer to keep him
abreast of developments adding: ``Please do not hesitate to
contact me should you require additional information''. The full
letter was tabled earlier today.
I would like some more information. I would like to know
how the minister can rationalize what he did in this situation
versus what he was told he could or could not do. Was the
minister not listening when he was being sworn in? Was the
minister not listening when he was told what the proper rules of
conduct are for a cabinet minister and what he has to do to pull
himself out?
I am sorry but there is no way the actions in this matter are not
examples of the worst kind of incompetence and impropriety. It
is my humble opinion-and I feel the House should really speak
out on this today-that he should do the honourable thing, not
only apologize to the Canadian public, not only apologize to his
peers as he did today. He has shown he is incapable of listening
to instruction. I know financially he is incapable of handling
that huge budget with all the areas that fall into his department.
I feel I have no choice. I know I am supported by a lot of
members of our party and other members. Perhaps even
members of the government would feel they could have a better
minister running the Department of Canadian Heritage than the
current minister. The man should not only reorganize his
department but he should just resign and get out of the way.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Ministry of Canadian Heritage is a fine example of how
governments just get into people's faces, how they interfere in
other people's lives. The ministry of heritage spends its entire
time trying to force Canadians to accept a piece of art work,
French language training in B.C., particular activities in the
sports arena and so on.
(1300)
My colleague from the NDP a little earlier in his speech
mentioned that he does not feel we are in a position in the House
to make judgments about the appropriateness of particular art
works. Yet the old line parties in the House certainly felt
completely competent to try to force the Charlottetown accord
on the people of Canada.
There is a new approach needed in the House which pays a lot
more attention to individual Canadians and what they want out
of their government.
I have an example here of how the government, the ministry
of heritage, is trying to force its way on the people of B.C. In
B.C. fewer than one-half of 1 per cent of the people speak
French at home. Yet the minister of heritage is sponsoring a
court case in B.C. to try to force the province of British
Columbia to install a francophone school board. It is absolutely
an outrage.
A francophone society in B.C. set up a task force to study the
situation. The minority language education task force report
regarding francophone school boards for school district No. 22
got a total of 696 individuals and 467 of those replies were
negative. The report completely ignored the negatives and
decided based on what appeared to be about 223 unsigned form
letters in French that there was an overwhelming demand for a
French school board in B.C.; 223 form letters and it decides
there is this overwhelming need for it.
What happens? The Canadian people now are forced to pay
for a court case that will probably go all the way to the Supreme
Court of Canada at immense expense for something that we just
do not need. If ever there was an example of a way that the
government could save money at a time of fiscal restraint it is
right now in this case.
There is another example in today's Toronto Star. The
headline: ``Amateur Sport is a Living Corpse''. It gives an
example from its investigation that the bureaucracy and
politically motivated agendas are swallowing up as much as $70
million of the budget for amateur sport.
The prediction from the report in the Toronto Star is that the
entire amateur sport situation is going to collapse into disarray
that will be incapable of winning medals by the turn of the
century. Instead of the money getting to the people who need it,
the sports men and women on the field, it is going to the
7299
bureaucracy. Is that not typical of what happens in Indian
affairs?
Enormous amounts of money get lost in the bureaucracy of
the Canadian heritage department. The entire department is a
disgrace. The minister should resign. Let us get rid of the
department and apply the money elsewhere in government.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what a pleasure it is to speak to Bill C-53.
My, my, my, what a surprise. I thought we were through with
all of this patronage with the new government and we are right
back to where we started from, all the things we believed in year
after year in the country and we are back to where we started.
Lots of times we are asked what the difference is between
Liberal patronage and Conservative patronage. The answer is
there really is not any difference other than the Liberals have
more of it.
Here we are already a little over a year into their term as
government and let us have a look at what kind of patronage we
are talking about. There are three Liberal Party hacks given jobs
to age 75 with the Senate. It is who you know and who you
support with this same old traditional party. That is what it is all
about, is it not?
One of the recent occurrences I had in my riding was chasing a
fellow by the name of José Salinas Mendoza who skipped out
due to the incompetence of the immigration department. One of
the interesting patronage appointments there which is so
indicative of the government is a fellow who was working on the
Liberal campaign in 1993 who just happened to donate some
money to the party, who just happened to be appointed to the
refugee board, who just happened to be a lawyer for José Salinas
Mendoza.
(1305 )
How does the government figure all this out? How does it get
so convoluted and so entwined in its own party politics, in its
own rhetoric, that it keeps appointing people to these kinds of
things?
Let us look at our latest boondoggle by the minister of
heritage. We have actually caught him in the act of a minister
supporting an application for an individual in his riding. How
blatant can one get? The reason this is blatant is that these
appointments are going on without the community out there,
without the people of Canada getting a grasp on exactly what is
happening with these political parties; without the people of
Canada complaining about these three Liberal Party hacks in the
Senate, without the people of Canada complaining about refugee
board appointments, about parole board appointments, about
immigration adjudicator appointments. We cannot stop this.
Today we are going to ask if we can probably put an end to it
by showing the government that the minister should step down.
If he could step down maybe the Prime Minister might be looked
upon by the bulk of the Canadian people as being forceful, as
being a leader of integrity, one who believes in the importance
of receiving and approving applications and appointing people
to government positions on the basis of merit, on the basis of
their qualifications, and not on the basis of whom you know and
to whom you donate money.
I have a long list of failed Liberal candidates who donated to
this party over here and it looks like a who's who on the list of
patronage. I guess that is just how to do it. That is the reward,
that is the pie in the sky if you support this party. Maybe you will
get the plum, the biggest plum of the Senate, and then you get all
these other paid plums down from the Liberal Party. They are all
there.
One of the Liberal members wants me to read the list. I have
not the time to read the list, it is too long. I only have 10 minutes.
Heritage is something we want to preserve. In the year 2010
and the year 2020 one would presume that we would want to
preserve the heritage of 1994. I have to ask: Are we proud
enough of what is going on in the country today with the
government to preserve it?
I think as we go along with the government we are going to
find that when the Reform Party government is in we will not
need that department of heritage down the road in the year 2020
because we will not be very proud of what the government is
doing today.
The real heritage in the country is where our people come
from, what we are preserving of our language and our culture,
our parks, all of that kind of heritage. I am not very proud of
what is going on with the government today.
I just want to look at a bit of heritage and talk about some of
the taxpayer dollars that have been going into the pet projects of
governments like this one, from departments of the minister of
cultural heritage.
Let us look at some of the simple little dollars that were spent
and what they were spent on. A couple of hundred thousand
dollars to study religious and historical practice among northern
Malagasy speakers is important to the Canadian taxpayer, is it
not? That is the kind of money these people spend. Those are
taxpayer dollars being spent on their pet peeves. It does not
make any sense at all.
(1310)
Twenty-one thousand dollars was spent on experimental
studies of interactive gestures. We can imagine what kind of
interactive gestures we have for the government. It should study
a few of those.
7300
Let us find the bureaucrats who want to spend $58,000 from
the department on an experiment of what it is like to work for
the Dominion grocery stores. There is an important issue on
which to spend taxpayer dollars. What do you have to do to pay
$58,000? In the country today you probably have to earn
$120,000 minimum. For anyone out there who made $120,000,
or any family out there that made a combination of that, the
grant that was spent on what it is like to work for the Dominion
grocery stores is one whole year of that family's total income
tax.
Whoever authorizes such grants as this should be fired. There
is no question in my mind. If that were my organization and I
found that kind of waste they would be gone. They would be
history.
Mr. Silye: It is other people's money. They spend it like it is
water.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Let us have a look. Here is
an interesting dollar spent out of a department, $10,800 to
finance a poll-this is just to finance the poll; we have to find
out what people think of it-to find out what Canadians thought
about Christmas lights. Really, that is important.
Mr. Silye: On or off?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): ``On or off'' my colleague
says. That is another study. It is only $10,800 to find out what
they think about Christmas lights so maybe we can spend
another $10,000 to find out what they like if they are off, and
another $10,000 to find out what they are like if they are on, and
if they are different sizes. The government could think of all
kinds of ways to spend our money.
Although we sort of jest about it, it is kind of sick to think
about what this government is doing and the government before
it because there is no difference between the Conservatives and
the Liberals.
Mr. Silye: Just the colour.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I do not know if the
Montreal Museum of Humour is still in business.
An hon. member: Toast.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I hear it is toast. It probably
has not made enough money but I know it had $3.3 million given
to it a few years ago and that was not enough of the taxpayers'
money to keep it profitable perhaps so maybe we should have
given it some more. I do not know how the bureaucrats are
thinking these days.
We gave $46,000 of your taxpayer money to assist artists in
the presentation of music in non-traditional spaces. We really
have to wonder about the logic behind this kind of thinking.
Why would they give any money at all in a grant like this one?
The topic is so stupid it defies any kind of logical conclusion.
Perhaps we should meld that with another interactive gesture
and see what we think of it.
We know Hurtig Publishers gets lots of money, or had lots of
money. I do not know about recently but I know in the past it has.
Under bilingualism there is grant after grant. I asked a
question in the House in the last session about the $5,000 grant
to the Canadian Kennel Club. This is very interesting. I received
an answer that it is all right, that it is only $5,000. That is
taxpayers' money. I got a letter from the Canadian Kennel Club
and it was really unhappy with the question I asked because it
felt it should have the money to support its bilingualism
program of whatever it was.
In the letter it told me it had a budget of around $4 million. I
wrote back to it and said: ``Wait a minute here. If you have a
budget of $4 million why do you need $5,000 of taxpayers'
money? What is the purpose?''
The real idea is that most of these organizations if not all of
them do not need the money. It is being made available by
governments like this so that they can spend on it for whatever
reason and much of it is very much unaccountable. Do we want
to preserve the ideas of the government?
(1315 )
Do we want to support the government? It is like supporting
that other government from Jurassic Park. That is what it is. If
the government keeps spending money the way it is doing and
blowing it out the door it too will join Jurassic Park just like its
brothers.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue.
Many of the questions raised here today are exactly the same as
those raised by my constituents and continue to be raised by
them.
They are wondering: ``What is going on in Ottawa. What are
they doing there? What is this government doing? We are
wondering what substantive legislation is being considered''.
When I tell them that the government has brought a bill forward
that reorganizes the department, they ask me: ``What is that
going to do for us? What does that mean?'' They ask questions
like: ``Does this mean that the bureaucrats are going to keep
shuffling the paper from one side of the desk to the other?'' I
say: ``I guess it means that they are shuffling bureaucrats. What
they are doing is very often unknown''.
They would like to know how this improves their situation in
Canada. They ask: ``Is this going to save money?'' We ask the
government the same thing. Is this going to save money? We are
met with stone silence. The government is not saving money. In
fact it is entrenching government spending in ways that will
make it more difficult to change in the future. Then they ask
questions like: ``Does this reorganization make the government
7301
more accountable to us? Will we have more control over the way
it spends money in the department?''
I ask the government: Does it do that? The government is
silent because it does not. It does not give the people of Canada
more control over what happens at the CBC or how these grants
that my hon. friend has just listed are given out. In fact it makes
it more difficult for taxpayers to have control over how this
government spends its money.
Mr. Silye: It is the incompetent minister who hands those
moneys out.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): My friend has
mentioned that it is the incompetent minister who hands these
things out, a minister who at the drop of a hat will interfere in
affairs or try to manipulate the applications of some special
interest group.
People are appalled at this. They ask: ``Has the government
not got the message yet that we want the government to be
accountable directly to the people?'' The government remains
silent and goes on its merry way without answering these
questions.
People are not happy with what is happening here. They feel
that if bills are introduced into the House they ought to be
substantive and they ought to meet the needs of this nation.
Then they ask: ``What's going on at that national art
museum?'' I say to them: ``I went there for a visit. I walked
through''. As I viewed the various so-called pieces of art I
wondered if the people of Canada could see this whether they
would actually contribute directly to these paintings, this art
that was displayed there. I describe to them some of the things I
saw. I told them that I walked into a large room which would cost
something to heat and to keep under those nice glass domes. I
saw what looked to me like a piece of baling wire running from
that corner to that corner. I asked the security person if they
forgot to put the art in this room and he said no, that is the piece
of art.
An hon. member: How much was it?
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): I do not know what it
would cost to string a piece of baling wire from one corner to the
other but I question that. Then I saw a toilet bowl hanging in a
doorway and I thought: ``That is interesting. I wonder how you
use that or why is that regarded as a piece of art?'' Things like
this are unbelievable.
(1320)
I had heard of the ``Voice of Fire'' so I looked for this painting
that had cost us over $1.5 million. I walked into a quite large
room and saw what I thought was a replica of this painting. I
asked the security guard: ``Where is the real thing?'' He said:
``That's it. That has actually cost us over $1.5 million''. I told
this to the people of Saskatchewan and they said: ``Do you mean
they are cutting back on health care so that we can have that
sitting there?'' They asked: ``Why are we not being given more
of a choice as to whether we want health care preserved in
Saskatchewan rather than it being cut back so that it is almost
inaccessible to some of the people in remote areas or that art?'' I
told them: ``Ask your government''.
We asked the government today and it cannot give us any
answers. I think that is very unfortunate.
During the election people made it very clear that
multiculturalism is not a priority and that official bilingualism
is not a priority. They feel that the government should be
looking at these areas.
When I was in the constituency last week I listened to the
radio. We hear a lot about how the CBC preserves culture and so
on in the province. I listened very carefully to the news reports. I
realized as I did that it concentrates on certain kinds of items and
in that way it can manipulate what people think about. Then I
listened to the so-called balance that it is purported to have.
I heard a very good economist give a three or four minute
account of what is happening in the country. I thought good for
you, this is excellent. However it was given at 6.30 in the
morning when very few people were listening. At 7.45 there was
a long interview with someone who had allegedly been abused
because of their sexual orientation. In that way they begin to
manipulate what people are thinking about.
Eighty per cent of the people in my province want to hear
more about certain issues but they cannot get the CBC to address
them. Instead, they have to put up with a lot of things that they
feel are not priorities in their lives and their society. They feel
the government is trying to manipulate what is happening in this
country, that it is trying to force a culture upon them that they
have no control over. That is why we advocate that people who
believe in certain things should pay for them. The government
should not be free to use their tax dollars in any way that the
elitists can and do.
I was surprised to hear the Liberals and the NDP in the House
defending the fact that the elite should be making these
decisions because they know better. People are appalled at this
kind of attitude. It is high time that it changed. A culture that is
paid for by the government tends to be very phoney. It is not a
real culture. That is what people are telling me.
Many decisions are made on projects because money is there
to spend on those projects. If you can apply for the money you
can have the project, but if you had to pay for it yourself it
probably would never take place.
My wife is of Norwegian ancestry. Her family has been here
for over a hundred years. They have preserved their culture and
their language. My wife is fluent in Norwegian. They have
preserved these things because it is important to them. There is
something real about that culture because it has not been funded
by taxpayers' dollars.
7302
My first language is not English or French. Some of you may
smile and say: ``We can tell that by the way you speak''. We
preserved our language and our heritage because it was
important to us. That is the message people want to get.
Ukrainian people in my area have preserved their culture and
their language because it is very important to them. I enjoy
going to their gatherings and meeting with them because it is
real. The government has not interfered with it. I feel that is the
kind of culture we need in Canada. We do not need a culture that
is imposed on us from the top, that is manipulated by
bureaucrats and people who think they know better what is going
on.
(1325)
If there is one message I hope the government will get, it is
that people are tired of the elite in society deciding what is good
for them. If we believe in culture we should preserve it.
The government does not really understand what culture
means and what people want. We should let people define their
own Canadian culture here in Canada. The bill entrenches
multiculturalism. It enforces official bilingualism. It preserves
funding for special interest groups. People do not want that.
They do not want the government misspending their money. The
government is giving the impression it is doing something. The
bill is symbolic of the fact there is nothing substantive
happening in the country today.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is going to be a very short intervention to reply to some of
the nonsense I have heard today in the debate.
The debate has focused on what culture means to a society and
to a nation. I have come to the conclusion there is very little
understanding on the other side of the House when they can ask
how many gallons of paint does a painting take to determine the
worth of the painting.
I had the privilege and the pleasure this morning of being at
breakfast with the director of the National Gallery. We were
talking about ``Voice of Fire''. We were talking about other
things too. Next year, and I am sure members opposite are not
aware of this, is the 75th anniversary of the Group of Seven. I
asked the director of the gallery what she thought the media
reports would have been about and the outraged comments of the
House of Commons would have been at the time our National
Gallery was purchasing paintings of the Group of Seven, when
the popular taste was pastoral landscapes in the European style.
Those purchases were very unpopular and yet what is one of our
great Canadian icons? The Group of Seven.
A gallery that was independent of political control 75 years
ago had the foresight to recognize something uniquely Canadian
in the style of Canada, something not based on imitating what
was being done elsewhere.
I am not qualified to judge ``Voice of Fire''. I really do not
know if that is the kind of painting that 75 years from now we
will be extremely proud to have had the foresight to buy and
have in our national collection. I hope so. I do not know.
I do know that I want a gallery that is free to buy what it
believes is the best being produced. I thank the gallery for
having fulfilled that role and for having preserved for us
something as uniquely Canadian and valuable as the paintings of
the Group of Seven, among others.
I want to make another comment. We have heard about
multiculturalism today as if all it does is support cultures that
are unique to specific groups. What in fact it does is build
understanding among Canadians.
Members on the opposite side have demonstrated that they
really do not know a lot about what they are saying because they
consistently talk about certain ethnic groups which do not rely
on government funding not being aware obviously that in fact
those groups do rely on government funding and are quite
competent in getting it.
Let me report another incident recently. I attended an award
ceremony at the Boys and Girls Club in my riding not too long
ago. It was a wrap up of their summer program. I saw young
people whose families have been in Canada for generations and
whose skins are white. I also saw young people whose families
have been in Canada for less than six months, Somalians,
Ethiopians, people from southeast Asia, people from all over the
world playing together, working together, and getting to know
each other.
(1330 )
I know that many of those Somalia youths are involved in the
community to the extent that they are because of organizations
like the Somali integration and settlement agency, which gets
funding from the very program that the members opposite are
criticizing.
They get funding because they are coming here as refugees.
They have left everything behind. The majority are women with
young children coming here for safety. These people do not
come here with a lot. This agency gives these people coming to
our country job training, language training, access to services so
they have the ability not to separate themselves, but to integrate
more fully and more completely into Canadian society. One of
the results of that is young Somalian, Ethiopian and Cambodian
children and children from all over the world I see playing
together at the Boys and Girls Club in my riding.
7303
I want to say one final word about special interest groups.
The people who talk about special interest groups frankly are
the biggest special interest group in the country. They are the
ones who by tradition and by the practice of all our laws, our
courts and all our systems are the privileged class.
If we fund certain groups in our society it is because without
government support the poorest, the disabled, women, children
would not have a voice in our public debate. I do not want a
public debate on public issues on the future of this country that
is dominated only by those who already have the wealth to make
their voices heard.
I do not want the decisions we make in the House made on the
basis only of opinions from those who can afford to travel to
Ottawa, to write to Ottawa, to hire lobbyists, to hire lawyers and
to hire accountants. I want the voices of all Canadians to be part
of what we decide in the House, what we determine in our
committees and what the future of Canadian society is.
Canadian society is not just for the privileged few; it is for all
Canadians.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the bill today. To
begin, I would like to address the issue of federal multicultural
policy. We will hear several Reformers speak against this policy
and the former government's policy of multiculturalism but we
will not hear the discontented backbenchers of the government
side speaking their views.
There are many on the other side now who share the Reform
position on multicultural policy. Multiculturalism is currently
under debate at all levels of our society. Recently CBC aired two
special episodes highlighting this very debate. The thrust of its
broadcast was whether multiculturalism policy brings us
together as Canadians or does exactly the opposite, pulls us
apart.
Even a member of the Liberal Party, the party that first put
forward its multicultural agenda and proposes to entrench it into
the legislation, came forward to oppose multiculturalism. It is a
fact that there is a great deal of support for the Reform position
on multiculturalism everywhere within the House.
During this televised debate the Liberal member for York
South-Weston referred to multiculturalism policy as a fraud
that continues to be perpetuated on Canadians.
The member referred to multicultural policy as a policy that
separates Canadians. He pressed that it is time for change.
Remember this is a Liberal. The member opposite proposed that
Canada dump its multicultural policy and begin to promote what
Canadians have in common, not their differences.
I am pleased to see such progressive and logical thinking
coming from the opposite side, as the member has come up with
some very valid points.
(1335 )
It is my hope that the government will consult with all elected
members in the House before it passes the legislation because
Canada's multicultural policy is a fraud. Rather than take a
different approach to Canada's multicultural landscape as the
member has suggested, I believe the federal government should
get out of the social landscaping business altogether. The
government should not be funding or promoting one ethnic
group over another. This is not the role of government.
A true liberal democracy simply does not try to legislate
culture. Twenty-three years ago, the architect of
multiculturalism, Pierre Trudeau, implemented the policy in a
misguided attempt to assure the cultural freedoms of Canadians.
These freedoms were already there. Canadians were already
free to nourish their own culture, speak their own language, sing
their own songs, play their own music and wear their traditional
clothes.
Canadians do not need government multicultural grants to
practice their cultural freedoms. Canadian culture is not created
or sustained, nor is it maintained through government grants.
Canada is a multicultural nation not because of government
policy but as a result of each individual who comprises this great
country.
Multiculturalism exists regardless and in spite of government
policy. Canadians do not need a song and dance fund to maintain
their individual cultures. Canadians do not maintain or develop
their culture through conferences or workshops or through
dances or craft shows.
Culture is not something that we buy at the corner store. It is
something that we learn at home mainly from our parents and
our grandparents. It is an acquired attribute. It is not something
that we buy.
In addition, the multiculturalism program is nothing more
than a funding program for special interest groups. Last year
grants to special interest groups for dances, conferences, film
making, books and other miscellaneous projects totalled $25.5
million. Grants from the previous three years totalled $27
million annually.
The government may argue that $25 million or $27 million is
not much in the larger scheme of things but when we are
spending $100 million a day more than we are taking in, it does
put it into perspective. It is a program that one, we do not need
and two, we cannot afford.
We desperately require fiscal restraint. If we are going to save
our social programs this government must be prepared to trim its
funding. Canada cannot sustain the spending binges of this and
previous Liberal governments.
7304
Canadians are facing severe fiscal restraint with our health
system and social systems deeply in trouble. The government
cannot argue to maintain transfers for health care at the same
levels and yet it seems determined to wander back to the Liberal
spending days of the 1970s with wasteful multicultural
spending.
The time has come to get with the times and show some
responsibility and leadership. Canadians do not want a song and
dance fund. They want jobs. They want health care. They want
pensions, higher education and a clean environment.
Spending priority is not the only issue here but regardless of
fiscal constraints, government should not be in the cultural
policy business. It is not the business of government to ensure
that Canadians maintain their cultures and traditions. That is the
responsibility of the groups themselves and should not be
financed with taxpayer's money.
Federal government activities should enhance the citizenship
of all Canadians regardless of race, language or culture. It
should be up to the provinces to choose whether they wish to
promote language and culture within their individual
jurisdictions.
I have another major concern. The program does not work.
Even the chairman of the human rights commission admits that
the program is not working. All the grants for miscellaneous
conferences, workshops and dances are not achieving the
intended goal. According to the human rights chair, racism is
growing.
Multiculturalism policy actively categorizes people on the
basis of race and countries of origin. This is wrong because it is
active discrimination. Multiculturalism policy separates people
on the basis of their origin instead of treating all Canadians
equally regardless of race.
The Reform Party is the only party that actively promotes
equality of all Canadians. It is the only party that officially
recognizes that all Canadians are equal and should be treated
equally.
(1340)
We support programs that involve the elimination of
discrimination and the right of individuals to participate in
Confederation without discrimination. Such programs would be
more logically transferred to the Canadian Human Rights
Commission, as the CHRC's mandate clearly states that the
commission has statutory responsibility to develop and conduct
programs to foster public understanding of the principles
enshrined in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
In conclusion, we oppose the current concept of
multiculturalism pursued by the government and would end all
funding for multiculturalism programs. Whether an ethnic
group preserves its cultural background is the group's choice,
not the government's.
In short, Canadians do not need nor do they want a song and
dance fund enshrined in legislation.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when I was asked if I would like to say a few words I
was of two minds. This being a debate on heritage it does bring
in the minister of heritage. That brings in the letter in the press
today in which the minister of heritage, I think quite innocently,
used his office or wrote a letter in support of a constituent asking
for the support of a constituent in an application before the
CRTC.
As I say, I was of two minds just how I would approach the
matter because a minister of the government is still a member
representing constituents. Therefore how do you balance your
responsibilities as a member of Parliament representing your
constituents and as a minister of the crown? What would be the
fiduciary responsibilities implied in both?
My concern was further complicated because I was asked just
after the election when we were all rookies, including the
minister opposite, to write a letter in support of an application
for a television station licence in my constituency. I did. I wrote
a letter to the CRTC and asked that it look favourably upon an
application. I thought about it for a while and I sent another
letter in rescinding the first letter because I recognized that I did
not have knowledge on either side of the issue. We hire people at
the CRTC to make these decisions. These decisions should be
made by the people who are being paid and who have the ability
to make the decision based on fact.
Additionally other people have asked for my support in
establishing or getting a licence for radio broadcasting. I wrote
in support of that because in my capacity as a member of
Parliament I should have the obligation to support members of
my constituency and Canadians in general who come to me for
help. I use my wisdom and I use my office after deciding the
merits of that case.
The difference of course is that I am a humble backbencher in
the third party. The minister-
Mr. Silye: You are a frontbencher. You are a frontliner.
Mr. McClelland: My hon. colleague tells me I am no longer a
humble backbencher. I am a humble frontbencher in a third party
very close to the door.
The difference is that a minister of the crown has a very
different fiduciary responsibility than a humble backbencher of
any party. This is the gist of the problem we have facing us
today.
An hon. member: If he does not know the difference he
should step down.
7305
Mr. McClelland: The thing that concerns me most is that
our country has suffered under nine years of almost visceral
dislike and hate for the Tories who were displaced by most here
in the Chamber today. You do not have to be a rocket scientist
to figure it out. They were dumped by the electorate and we
were elected because the Canadian people lost their trust in the
people who were governing them. They felt that the people who
were in power were more interested in protecting their friends,
hubris, getting rich, looking after their own interests than they
were in looking after the interests of the ordinary people, the
people who pay the freight $10 at a time.
(1345)
The consequence is that we were elected to the House. We
have a profound responsibility. Our country is going into a time
of distemper never before seen in this land. We have in the loyal
opposition a party dedicated to breaking up the country. We have
a third party, all but one of whom are absolute rookies. We have
the Liberal Party in power, the vast majority of whom are
absolute rookies. We have to use the opportunity and not
squander it. We have to use it to make some very fundamental
changes in the way our country is governed and the way we
inter-relate one with another and the way we get things done.
Everything ministers do is based on a foundation of trust. If
that foundation of trust between the electorate, the Canadian
citizenry, and Parliament, those elected to lead, is broken then
we lose our reason to be here. We have lost the moral authority
to provide leadership to a country desperately in need of
leadership.
That is the reason I asked to speak in the debate. It is not that I
have an axe to grind with the hon. minister opposite. I do not in
any respect. In my view this was an honest mistake made by a
rookie, just as I am a rookie. When one makes a mistake it is an
opportunity to learn. Rather than stonewalling, rather than
saying: ``Hey, I did all right. I did the right thing. You have it all
wrong''. He should have the courage to come to the table and
say: ``Look, I made a mistake. I have learned from it and it will
not happen again''. It should be a caution to all of us.
Mr. Milliken: He did.
Mr. McClelland: Then it becomes experience. We put it
behind us and we go on from there. That is the very least we in
this Parliament and Canadians in general should expect from a
minister of the crown.
I would like to speak to the issue of multiculturalism and the
department of heritage. Much has been said in recent times
about the value of multiculturalism in Canada. We are a much
stronger, much finer, much more varied and rich nation because
of our multicultural heritage, because by and large people get
along with each other. We respect each other for our differences.
Let me give a personal indication of what is so wonderful
about our country. Perhaps it is just serendipitous that this
happened to me this morning. I was walking to the House and I
stopped at the Apollo Restaurant on Bank Street for breakfast. I
sat down. I did not know a soul there. I was reading the paper and
having breakfast. The people next to me were speaking to each
other in Greek and in English. There would be four or five words
in Greek, four or five words in English, a sentence in Greek and
then a sentence in English. I was sitting there thinking it was
marvellous that they could go back and forth in these two
languages. This is part of our common culture.
(1350 )
I started chatting with them and it came out in conversation
that the reason these two people were speaking in English and
Greek was because they noticed that when I ordered I spoke in
English and they assumed that I could not speak Greek. They did
not want me to feel out of place or that they were saying
something I should not know or whatever. They were trying to
make me feel comfortable in the fact that I could not speak
Greek.
Here we were having breakfast and talking about how
wonderful it is that we have this multilingual heritage in our
country and that we have it because we want it. We have it
because it springs indigenously from the hearts of the people to
whom it belongs. It is not something that is force fed or
cultivated by the government.
As this debate unfolds, we need to draw a distinction between
multiculturalism that springs naturally from the fact that our
nation is built up of people all over the world and government
multiculturalism that is force fed to us in order to curry favour
with multi-ethnic groups. It is a very important distinction.
Therefore I would like to move:
That we add after the words Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage:
``and the standing committee report back to the House no later than June 23, 1995''.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The subamendment
moved is in order.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am provoked to speak in the debate today because of
the misrepresentations being placed before the House by the
members in the Reform Party who are suggesting that somehow
the Minister of Canadian Heritage has done something wrong
and therefore ought to resign his post.
I want to argue against that proposition because it is palpable
rubbish and nonsense. The minister came into the House this
morning and made a very clear and succinct statement, as
suggested by the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast in his
7306
most reasoned address. It is the only beam of reason we have
heard from the other side of the House on this issue this day.
The hon. member for Edmonton Southeast presented a
veritable feast of reason in his address because he made it very
clear that the minister should come and do what in fact the
minister did earlier this morning.
He came into the House. He apologized. He said he was sorry
that he made an error in sending a letter. This was not the case of
a minister who had been exposed having done something
improper.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Milliken: I say to hon. members, listen to the facts. Some
of them were not here this morning when the minister made his
remarks. Of course they did not have notice of it so they
probably did not understand it when he delivered it. The
minister came into the House and said: ``Here are the facts of the
case''. He produced his letter of March 13, tabled it in the
House, and read the letter into the record.
(1355)
Let me read what the minister's letter says. He says he is
writing about a problem and then he said: ``I would be most
grateful if you could give this application due consideration''.
Did he say special treatment? No. Did he say fancy treatment,
something out of the ordinary? No. He said due consideration.
Then he said: ``I trust that you will keep me abreast of any
developments in this matter and please do not hesitate to contact
me should you require additional information'', a standard letter
that a member of Parliament representing a constituent would
send.
If hon. members opposite will not send that kind of letter I
suggest to them they are not doing their job for their
constituents. Here was a minister diligently doing his duty as a
member of Parliament for his constituent.
As he said, he realized that was not the thing for him to do. It
came to his attention soon after when another constituent wrote,
had noted the letter, and wanted to know if this was support for
the application. He wrote back on September 30 and he tabled
that letter in the House this morning. Hon. members opposite in
their speeches often conveniently neglect to mention this. I tried
to remind them in my remarks from my seat, but of course they
do not pay much attention to that.
He said: ``This is further to your letter of September 20'' and
so on. He wrote: ``My letter of March 15, 1994 to the CRTC
simply asked that due consideration be given to the application.
It is not intended to convey support for or opposition to the
application''. He sent a copy of this letter to the CRTC to
reinforce the message that this was neither in opposition nor in
support. It was a very decent letter and he did it in a timely way.
That is what the minister did. It is not as though he sent this
after there had been an exposure of the facts in the press or in the
House. He did the honourable thing as soon as he realized there
was some mistake. He came into the House this morning and
gave this explanation so all hon. members could hear.
As I said earlier, he did not send an advance copy to the
Reform Party so maybe they did not understand it. He did not
send it to them last night. Maybe they had trouble reading it. I do
not know what happened with the Reform Party members.
However I invite them to get the blues which are available to
them and read the minister's statement. Then they will agree
with me that this minister has acted with complete propriety. He
apologized for sending the-
The Speaker: Order. It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by
Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
7306
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on October 18 of this year the member for Swift
Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia in his speech to the House
referred to today's generation of Ukrainian people as having
their hands out for grants. I find this an absolute insult.
My children have attended and continue to attend Ukrainian
cultural events that are totally paid for by the families and the
local churches. Such comments of the hon. member do nothing
to advance multiculturalism in this country.
Canadians of Ukrainian ancestry are asking for redress for the
internment of Ukrainians during World War I. This is not a
request for a handout but, instead, is a demand for return of
property seized from these new Canadians and never returned to
them after the war.
I hope this hon. member joins with us in this request for
restitution of property wrongfully seized and retained by the
Canadian government.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, Israel and Jordan initialed a historic agreement
ending a state of war between the two peoples which lasted more
than 46 years. The agreement is even more exemplary because it
was achieved despite provocations from extremists.
7307
By common consent, Prime Minister Rabin of Israel and King
Hussein of Jordan agreed to work together to make the desert
valleys bloom again in peace.
Such an agreement is only possible if the parties persevere in
their desire to improve the situation step by step so that it
becomes a lasting peace.
We are pleased with this agreement, which seeks to improve
the lives of Israelis, Jordanians and Palestinians. We hope that
the next step will extend to Syria as soon as possible.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today in total disbelief that this government has
reinstated the court challenges program. This program is
nothing more than government funding of special interest
groups, which more often than not exhibit bias or promote a
view that is not in accordance with the majority of society.
Perhaps even more alarming is the fact that the Liberals
managed to find almost $3 million floating in some abyss to
fund this wasteful program. Yet this same level of government is
contemplating raising personal taxes, implementing a carbon
tax, taxing RRSP contributions and doing little to fight the debt
or deficit.
Our national debt is rising by $1,743 every second and is now
$538,860,511,635.87.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and its amendments
seek to improve key elements of the federal process. The Act
contains mechanisms whereby different levels of government
can harmonize their processes through administrative
agreements and reduce duplication and uncertainty.
These mechanisms are intended to facilitate the delegation of
environmental assessments to the provinces and thus to make
things easier for developers. Almost all the provinces in Canada
are now negotiating harmonization agreements with the federal
government. I sincerely hope that the Government of Quebec
will do the same and negotiate a harmonization agreement as
soon as possible, so that Quebec developers can enjoy a level of
service comparable to that available in the other provinces of
Canada.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on August 17, on the recommendation of the Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the federal
government obtained from manufacturers of BST-bovine
somatotropin-in Canada a promise to voluntarily defer the sale
and use of BST until July 1, 1995. I was delighted to learn that
the Government of Canada has just appointed a seven-member
task force that will also review the safety of recombinant bovine
somatotropin for animal and human health.
I wish to bring to the attention of this advisory group and of
the Minister of Health that, contrary to what was said and
written, some studies show that BST alters the nutritional
quality of milk, producing more fat and less protein. I am
concerned about the impact this change in the percentage of
milk components might have on the future health of our young
consumers.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, October has been proclaimed Psoriasis Awareness
Month.
One to three per cent of the Canadian population suffer from
this chronic and recurrent skin disorder. Although not
contagious, the impact can be disruptive physically
emotionally, socially and economically. Health care costs are
enormous. In addition, sufferers pay out thousands of dollars for
over the counter and prescription drugs.
During this month chapters of the Canadian Psoriasis
Foundation are hosting public information activities across the
country explaining the disease, its treatment and recent
advances. We commend the many volunteers of the Canadian
foundation for their diligent attention and for their caring help to
fellow Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is really against his will that the Prime
Minister finally agreed to raise the issue of human rights during
his trip to China, but not officially, quietly, in private, above all,
not in broad daylight. To do more, he tells us, would be
``unrealistic''.
In fact, if we did more than that, according to him, a small
country like Canada would become a laughing stock. How many
more prisoners of conscience will have their basic rights
violated during the Prime Minister's trip? That, he would rather
not know.
7308
(1405)
Some of Canada's prime ministers managed to convey the
people's values; they showed vision and dignity by embracing
universal values; they gave a soul to our foreign policy. Then,
Mr. Speaker, there are the others.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canada Council operates under the Minister of
Canadian Heritage.
The council granted Hilarey Mackey and Shelly Wine
$16,000 to produce the video ``Fury of The Sound'' even though
these women were under criminal contempt charges for the very
activity that was to be the subject of the video: criminally
blocking forestry workers from going to work in Clayoquot
Sound. Mackey and Wine were each sentenced to 21 days in jail
on October 6 for criminal contempt.
The minister states he does not have any authority over the
awarding of these grants and the director of the Canada Council
defers to a system of evaluation by peers. Canadian taxpayers
are fed up with organizations that use their tax dollars to foster
the destruction of their lifestyle. When is the minister going to
change legislation in his department?
* * *
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
October is known as Child Abuse Prevention Month.
Child abuse is the most disturbing problem facing Canadian
society today. It is not a new problem but as a society we
recognize that violence against children whether it is physical,
sexual or emotional is a problem which concerns us all.
For too long children have been silenced by fear and isolation
and by attitudes which deny the seriousness and extent of the
problem. Child abuse can no longer be tolerated in Canada. It is
time to act against child abuse in all of its forms. We must
challenge the attitudes which devalue our children. We must
intervene when we know that a child is being threatened.
As the federal government we are committed to stopping child
abuse through the family violence initiative. Working in
partnership with community and national organizations,
corporate and voluntary sectors and all levels of government we
have developed prevention and intervention strategies to protect
children and families.
Our children can wait no longer. They are the most vulnerable
members of our society and we must act now to protect them.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
high time that Canada had an integrated federal-provincial
value-added sales tax. The current system is a huge burden on
the government and on business and is very unfair to consumers.
[English]
I applaud the finance minister's plan to create an integrated
national sales tax that would have a lower operational cost, a
lower rate in most provinces and would still exclude items such
as basic groceries, prescription drugs and medical services.
[Translation]
Canadians want to end political pettiness between the various
levels of government. They want an end to duplication and they
especially want an end to the GST.
[English]
The federal government's proposal reflects extensive
discussions held with the provinces over the summer. Given the
state of finances at all levels of government and the ever
diminishing consumer purchasing power, I call on the provinces
to quickly adopt the federal government's proposal.
Canadians want to see an integrated national sales tax, not just
hear about it.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate Rose Charlie, the grand chief of B.C.
on receiving one of the Governor General's awards last week.
The awards are given in commemoration of the Persons case, the
decision of the British Privy Council which declared Canadian
women to be persons.
Rose was given the award for over 25 years of public service
and for her outstanding contributions to improving and
advancing the life of natives, aboriginal women in particular.
As a founding member of Indian Rights for Indian Women,
Rose helped change discriminatory legislation that deprived
aboriginal women of their status when they married non-Indians
or American native men. The change has enabled thousands of
women and their children to regain their status. She also helped
to start the Indian Homemakers Association of B.C. in the late
7309
1960s when there were not any native organizations in the
province.
Rose remains active in the community today serving as
president of the Mission Friendship Centre and participating in
numerous organizations.
Please join me in recognizing the accomplishments of Rose
Charlie.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Ottawa is
playing some weird and wonderful games with federally-funded
regional development agencies in Quebec. It has restructured
the FORDQ to increase its visibility in the regions on the eve of
the referendum, while it reduces funding for regional
development. Even worse, these cuts are being imposed
arbitrarily. Business development centres, which are on their
way out, were able to create a job for $5,000, compared with
$100,000 in the case of the federal infrastructures program.
(1410)
Quebec should be given responsibility for regional
development, which would get rid of the current bureaucratic
mess and the haphazard cutbacks proposed by the federal
government.
Only Quebec can consolidate the resources of all the agencies
that are active in the regions. It would be a real one-stop service.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
according to a recent Gallup poll the Prime Minister is more
popular than former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was at the
time of the October crisis.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Listen to that applause, Mr.
Speaker. Government members had better make the best of it
while they can. Even though the Prime Minister is presently at
61 per cent popularity, guess who holds the record? Brian
Mulroney. He peaked at a 62 per cent popularity rating in 1983.
Well the honeymoon for this Liberal government is over. The
scandals are starting to surface. Reform MPs are looking
forward to helping the Prime Minister reach the present day
popularity rating of Mr. Mulroney. I think that might just be
right off the bottom of the scale.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, in addition to his apparent inability to discharge his
general duties and responsibilities, the Minister of Canadian
Heritage has failed to bring a sensitivity of Canada's First
Nations to his department.
Earlier this year Heritage Canada published an otherwise fine
publication for youth entitled ``The Great Canadian
Adventure''. It is a trivia game that asks young people questions
about Canada and in doing so continues to state as fact that
Quebec and Prince Edward Island were discovered by
Europeans. This language is no longer appropriate.
At the same time the department has just awarded a half
million dollar contract to develop curriculum materials
pertaining to aboriginal people in Canada to a Montreal
company that has no cultural knowledge or expertise to handle
the contract. This is disturbing since the cultural and technical
expertise does exist at the Saskatchewan Indian Cultural Centre
in Saskatoon, a group that was vying for the contract.
First Nation peoples deserve better from the minister
responsible-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Brampton.
* * *
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier this week the Minister of Foreign Affairs met with the
home affairs minister for India to discuss many important
issues, including the human rights situation in that country.
Many Canadians are concerned with current human rights
practices in India. After repeated refusals to co-operate with
non-governmental organizations attempting to assess the
human rights condition in India, the Government of India
allowed Amnesty International to conduct studies in the city of
Bombay earlier this year.
As Canadians we must be concerned when a human rights
organization is restricted in its efforts to assess the human rights
conditions of any country. I was pleased to learn during
Question Period the other day that the Canadian government has
made representation to the Government of India on behalf of
Amnesty International so that more thorough studies may be
conducted.
It is time that Canada took a definitive stand in its relations
with India and called for an open policy in that country with
respect to human rights. As the Indian economy continues to
grow at a very rapid pace, Canadian trade relations with India
will continue to grow closer. Now is the time to insist-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo.
7310
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to inform the House of the visit to Ottawa today of 14
CEOs representing a cross-section of a growing, vibrant
information technology sector from the federal riding of
Waterloo. They are part of the computer technology network in
Canada's technology triangle.
The computer technology network is made up of over 125
companies employing 5,500 people and with annual revenues in
excess of $600 million. Sixty per cent of their sales are derived
from exports with expenditures on research and development
close to $100 million annually. More than half of the 5,500
employees have been hired in the past two years.
As entrepreneurs and leaders in one of Canada's hotbeds of
technology with strong connections to the University of
Waterloo, these firms represent the very best that Canada has to
offer to the new economy. It is companies like these that assure
Canada's present and future prosperity.
* * *
(1415 )
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have been
advised that documents within Parks Canada recommend the
permanent closure of the Banff and Jasper Park airstrips. This is
another example of the heritage minister's incompetence.
These grass airstrips are vital to the safe air transportation of
local pilots through the main mountain pass corridors.
Furthermore, these airstrips are maintained primarily by local
pilots.
Under the department's existing recommendation, local pilots
who encounter bad weather or equipment failure would have to
land their aircraft on the main highways. That is stupid.
The private pilots need to be considered. In the name of public
safety and common sense, I urge Parks Canada to trash this
proposal.
_____________________________________________
7310
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it is now common knowledge that a member of
cabinet, in this case the Minister of Canadian Heritage,
intervened directly with the CRTC to support an application for
a radio licence, at the request of the party concerned. This was
done in the form of a letter sent to the chairman of the CRTC, the
regulatory body responsible for issuing licences.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does he
consider such action acceptable and appropriate, considering
the obligation incumbent on all ministers to respect the
autonomy of judicial and quasi-judicial bodies?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I discussed the incident with the minister who, like all
members of this House, is the member of Parliament for his
riding. All members must be available to their constituents and
try to provide the services expected of a member.
In this particular case, all the minister did was bring this
application to the attention of the chairman of the CRTC, with
the comment: ``This application should receive due
consideration. To me, this means: Could you take care of this
dossier, and if there are any problems, if I can be of any
assistance as the member for Laval, fine.
Subsequently, when his letter was interpreted as a letter of
support, as soon as the minister heard about this, without any
pressure from anyone, he immediately wrote to this person, and
a copy was sent to the commission to make it clear he had not
supported the application in any way. He had simply asked the
commission to do its job.
This is always a problem for ministers. The Hon. Leader of
the Opposition must have had that experience himself. A
minister is also a member of Parliament, and we have a duty to
represent our constituents without influencing bodies like the
CRTC.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, B.Q.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been unconscionably
irresponsible in his attempts to downplay the seriousness of his
minister's action. How can he claim it was the member of
Parliament who took this action and not the minister? How could
the chairman of the CRTC overlook the fact that the letter was
sent by a member of Cabinet who also happen to be his own
minister?
Does the Prime Minister not agree that the CRTC is a
quasi-judicial body that, as such, should not be subject to any
interference or pressure from the minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I could not agree more, and if the minister acted as the
member for Laval when he asked the commission to do its job, it
was not undue pressure. The minister himself said in the House
this morning that perhaps he should have acted differently.
Everyone makes honest mistakes, and he corrected his mistake
as soon as possible.
In the circumstances, after checking with my advisers, I
concluded there was nothing here to justify changing the
membership of my cabinet.
7311
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows the precedents. They
are immutable and inescapable. A minister who fails to respect
the autonomy of a judicial or quasi-judicial body must
relinquish his post. The present minister of Foreign Affairs and
the present member for Sherbrooke know this rule and had to
resign because of it.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does he realize
that he is guilty of dereliction of duty if he does not immediately
demand the resignation of the Minister of Canadian Heritage?
Does he not realize it is a matter of honour and integrity?
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have acted responsibly. I have eighteen years
experience as a minister, and I have seen other complex
situations. As for this one, I think the minister made it clear that
he had made an honest mistake and corrected it in short order.
I am surprised to see the Leader of the Opposition in such a
furor, when his head office in Quebec summons its bureaucrats
and tells them to knuckle under and change their political views
if they want to keep their jobs.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister downplays the action of the
heritage minister by claiming that the letter to the Chairman of
the CRTC is not a letter of support. Yet, this is precisely what the
CRTC understood and, in fact, its secretary-general wrote to the
minister to thank him for what he referred to as a letter of
support.
Does the Prime Minister not realize that his minister's
interference is compounded by the fact that it was directed at an
organization whose independent status is under the protection of
the minister and that, consequently, the heritage minister was all
the more guilty?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister's letter is very clear. It says:
[English]
``I would be most grateful if you could give this application
due consideration''. Yes, due consideration. You are right.
[Translation]
You give this application due consideration and make a
decision.
Later, when told that his action had been interpreted as
interfering with due process, the minister said:
[English]
It is not intended to convince support for or opposition to the
application.
[Translation]
So, it is very clear in my mind that the minister acted the way a
member of Parliament should, in that he tried to represent the
interests of one of his constituents whom he had never met
before.
I represent the riding of Saint-Maurice; I was a minister for
18 years and I have now been Prime Minister for one year. Every
time my constituents, who have been voting for me for 25 years,
have problems, I always give them due consideration.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said this morning that he would
not be as lenient towards other ministers guilty of similar
actions.
How can the Prime Minister recognize the seriousness of that
interference on the heritage minister's part, and not have the
courage to impose the sanction he deserves, that is to expel him
from Cabinet?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I reviewed the issue, I consulted experts in my office
and in the government, and I have come to the conclusion that,
under the circumstances, the hon. member can remain Minister
of Canadian Heritage and keep serving Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when this government was elected the Prime Minister
promised a new era of integrity, including a code of conduct for
ministers and an ethics counsellor.
I ask the Prime Minister, in ushering in this new era of
integrity specifically what guidelines were given to cabinet
ministers in regard to communication with quasi-judicial
regulatory bodies like the CRTC?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very simple. A minister should not interfere or put
pressure on anybody like the CRTC. He can, and it is his duty, as
you would do for your constituents-
The Speaker: Order. My colleagues I would ask you to please
address the Chair in all of your questions and answers.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for one thing I am not a minister and not in the same
position as the hon. minister.
There is a simple guideline that applies in these cases and it is
a most elementary one. It is understood in most jurisdictions.
That is that ministers do not communicate with quasi-judicial
regulatory bodies except in three ways: through statute, through
orders in council, and through public formal submissions to that
body. They do not communicate through telephone calls or
casual conversations or casual letters on behalf of applicants or
interveners.
7312
(1425)
Can the Prime Minister assure this House that that simple
guideline, which is understood in most jurisdictions, was given
to the ministers of his government, including the Minister of
Canadian Heritage?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I explained that every cabinet minister is a member of
Parliament. When you are in your riding on Saturday, Sunday or
Monday receiving your constituents you have to receive them.
In this case, this person asked his member of Parliament if he
would make sure that his application would be considered, and
he just asked the CRTC to do exactly what is their duty to do. He
did not put apply pressure. He just asked them to consider this
application, as it was his duty to ask as a member of Parliament.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister read all of the letter that
the minister sent to the chairman of the CRTC. In his last
paragraph he said this: ``I trust that you will keep me abreast of
developments in this matter and please do not hesitate to contact
me should you require additional information''.
What was the minister thinking of? Was he contemplating
entering into an ongoing dialogue with the chairman of a
regulatory authority over an application?
Is the Prime Minister really saying that this type of activity is
acceptable? Will he not ask the minister to resign?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
According to the House of Commons circumstances the minister
has explained what he has done. I said that he made an honest
error in sending-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): No, he did it. When he
realized that it was interpreted as trying to apply pressure he
clarified it on his own without pressure from anybody from
anywhere. He said to the commission: ``Do not interpret that as
wanting to support or oppose this application'' and that he was
just asking them to look at the application and render the
judgment that they have to render under the law.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
In his letter to the CRTC, the Minister of Canadian Heritage
wrote that he wished to be kept abreast of developments in the
matter. Does the Prime Minister not realize that in so writing,
the Minister of Canadian Heritage is putting pressure on the
CRTC to issue a licence?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think that the hon. member should read the letter that
the minister sent. When he heard that his action was being
interpreted as bringing pressure to bear, he made it clear to the
CRTC that he had not intended to support or oppose the
application, but that he had merely referred it, as a member of
Parliament, to the Commission.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in his letter on ministerial letterhead, the minister goes even
further, offering to provide the CRTC personally with additional
information on the licence application.
Has the Prime Minister really read this letter, and if so, how
can he not conclude that the CRTC would assume that he was
writing in his capacity as minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps the minister should have used the letterhead he
keeps for his correspondence as the member for Laval West, just
as I could use a letterhead identifying myself as the member for
Saint-Maurice. But everyone knows very well that Jean
Chrétien is the Prime Minister, and if I used a different
letterhead, people would perhaps find it a bit ridiculous.
I did indeed read the original letter and the letter of
explanation. It was an honest mistake on the part of the minister
and he took corrective action himself without any pressure from
anyone. Under the circumstances, I think that it is my
responsibility to declare the matter closed at this point.
I consulted the government's ethics counsellor and one I
appointed myself, and both confirmed that I had made the right
decision in this matter.
(1430)
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The CRTC received two applications for a 24-hour Greek
language specialty service to be played on radio. The first is by
CHOM from Montreal and the second was by a Mr. Daniilidis in
Telemedia.
On May 5 of this year the CRTC rejected the CHOM
application. On March 15 the Minister of Canadian Heritage
intervened by sending a letter of support for the application of
Mr. Daniilidis.
The minister's intervention supporting the second application
came prior to the rejection of the first application. How can the
minister deny that his intervention did not influence the CRTC
decision?
7313
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the letter I sent to the CRTC was the letter
of an MP designed to ensure that a constituent received due
process.
I attach great importance to my role as a member of
Parliament. I am sure that my colleague feels the same way
when she has constituents coming to visit her constituency
office. She takes account of what they are requesting.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the issue is clear and the minister did not answer my question.
My supplemental is for the Prime Minister. The Minister of
Canadian Heritage has stated in the House that the CRTC is a
quasi-judicial agency and that the Canadian government,
including the Minister of Canadian Heritage, should not
interfere in the process.
His current action is an obvious and flagrant breach of the
judicial principle. Will the Prime Minister now demand the
resignation of his minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said earlier that I would look into the matter very
carefully. I have consulted those who have responsibility in the
matter.
The minister made an honest error. He corrected it
immediately without any pressure. It is one of those things.
Every member of the cabinet is confronted with the same
problem. Some constituents write to me about problems in every
department and I have a responsibility over every department. I
send requests to ministers and ask that they be looked into. It is
part of my job as the member of Parliament for Saint-Maurice.
In this case, I concluded after consultation, as explained to the
House, that there was no need for a resignation.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister, who has told us repeatedly over the past year
that he attaches the utmost importance to the integrity of his
ministers, is now turning a blind eye to a very serious mistake on
the part of the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
How can the Prime Minister be taken seriously when, at the
first opportunity to come his way, in view of such a serious
mistake, he chooses to forgive and forget rather than enforce his
code of ethics? Clearly, the Prime Minister is not equal to the
situation.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said that I had consulted the government's ethics
counsellor who told me that the minister had been careless but
had taken corrective action himself as soon as he realized that
sending the letter was being construed as interference. It was put
in very clear terms. Under the circumstances, I accepted this
piece of advice as well as the explanation provided by the
minister. I believe that he has done his job as a member of
Parliament.
Some people say that MPs who do not do their job as MPs
should be relieved of their duties. I find it somewhat surprising
that a member who insists that MPs should do their job would
expect MPs who are ministers as well not to do their job as MPs.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister hides behind the advice of his advisors. But they
are not the ones who have been elected. He should assume his
responsibilities.
(1435)
Are we to understand from the decision of the Prime Minister
of Canada that he puts personal friendship above the integrity of
his Cabinet?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I take full responsibility for this decision. Never did I
attempt to evade my responsibilities in making this decision. In
response to a question, I said that I could have not requested any
advice, but chose to do so and was told that, under the
circumstances, it was totally acceptable, and I take full
responsibility for that.
Again, I find it somewhat surprising to hear the Bloc
Quebecois come here and talk about integrity when employees
are blackmailed by its parent organization to retain their jobs.
What is going on in Quebec City is a disgrace. It is
embarrassing!
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, first
we hear the Prime Minister say that he was making a
representation as an ordinary MP. Then in the next breath the
Prime Minister said: ``Well, it was an honest mistake''.
We want the true answer to this. Was it representation or was
it a mistake?
The Speaker: Order. We must presume that our word will be
taken at face value in this House. I do not know that the truth
should be questioned like that. Perhaps the hon. member could
rephrase the question.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage
claims that he wrote the letter to the CRTC on behalf of a
constituent to ensure that he received ``a fair hearing and due
consideration''.
He also claims he had absolutely no intention of influencing
the CRTC. Does the minister have any reason to believe that the
CRTC would not give his application a fair hearing and due
consideration unless he personally wrote them a letter?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the fullest confidence in the CRTC.
The CRTC is an arm's length agency, which I respect, as I stated
in this House on several occasions when some members of the
7314
opposition were suggesting that I should interfere in its
operations.
When there was an indication that the letter I sent could lend
itself to misinterpretation, I quickly made arrangements through
a second letter to make sure the original meaning was
understood.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
gives new meaning to the phrase ``the six month's hoist''.
Improper ministerial influence is apparent when only one
application to the CRTC is favoured with a personal
introduction by the Minister of Canadian Heritage on
ministerial letterhead.
This morning the minister said that he ``never for a moment
had any hesitation or misunderstanding about my role or
responsibilities as a minister''.
If that is the case then he knowingly and grossly violated that
understanding by favouring this application. For his
incompetence and his incredible lack of judgment, will this
minister resign?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no I will not.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. None of the government
ministers was able to confirm that no spying was done on
members of the Quebec government and on the Quebec
sovereignty movement. Their ignorance is probably due to the
fact that the Communications Security Establishment reports
directly to the Prime Minister and to him alone.
Can the Prime Minister assure us that members of the Quebec
government and the sovereignty movement were not spied on by
the CSE?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Privacy Commissioner conducted an investigation
to determine if there had been any wrongdoing and he reported
to the government that nothing wrong was done. The
commissioner is still investigating the matter. He has a duty to
tell us if this organization illegally monitored the conversations
of Canadian citizens or spied on them.
As far as I know, it was not done and I say to the House that I
do not want this to be done because we do not need this in a
democratic society.
(1440)
The commissioner will submit his report. I did not appoint
him; he has been in that job for a very long time. I think that he is
a competent man, and I am sure that if there has been abuse in
this area, he will notify me and I will act accordingly. So far, I
have seen no evidence that anyone was spied on illegally in
Canada, at least since I have been Prime Minister.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
can the Prime Minister claim that his government has nothing to
hide when his Minister of Defence refuses to release any
information on the CSE's mandate, activities and budget, and
even refuses to give the name of its director, even though it
appears in the government telephone directory?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the name appears in the telephone directory, it is not
hard for Canadians to find out who he is, it is no secret.
* * *
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Everyone here knows how important it is to make the Royal
Military College in Kingston bilingual.
Can the minister tell us what he intends to do to really make
this college bilingual and then to have this principle of
bilingualism respected and maintained?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I wish to thank my colleague for his question. It is a legitimate
one. I must reassure him of the importance I myself attach to this
subject, especially making the Canadian Forces bilingual,
including the Royal Military College in Kingston.
I would like to inform the House that I have appointed a
special committee to review and monitor the bilingualization of
the Royal Military College in Kingston, with three top-flight
members, including the former commander, General Émond, the
former principal, Roch Carrier, Dr. Paule Leduc of the Privy
Council, and myself as chair. This committee will make
recommendations on all the aspects raised by the hon. member.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
do not think the Prime Minister looked carefully enough. In
support of his application to the CRTC is a letter from the Greek
National Bank. I will just quote from that letter.
``Any services extended towards Mr. Daniilidis will be
greatly appreciated''. This letter also comments on how honest
and capable the applicant is.
7315
Now this same Greek National Bank is listed as a contributor
to the campaign of the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I would like to ask the
Minister of Canadian Heritage whether he maintains that this
entire affair is still above board?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the answer was so short I must have missed it. I presume he said
yes.
In an intervention letter complaining that the same type of
application was turned down only four months previously, there
were serious allegations of impropriety on the part of the
applicant, specifically that he failed to report under oath his
complete holdings in a communications company when he
declared bankruptcy in July 1992.
Could the minister explain how this applicant, who he
supports, cleared his name from the bankruptcy file in only one
year and surfaced as a major shareholder of a new company?
The Speaker: My colleagues, I am not sure that the thrust of
the question deals with the responsibility. The question should
be directed to the administrative responsibility that this minister
holds. I rule that question to be out of order.
* * *
(1445)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, B.Q.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The latest events concerning the Communications Security
Establishment have highlighted the lack of external control over
the activities of this federal spy agency. It is completely
unacceptable that the CSE, with nearly 2,000 civilian and
military employees and an annual budget of over $200 million,
is not subject to any external control.
In a democratic society like ours, how can the Prime Minister
accept spending over $200 million a year on espionage activities
without making CSE officials accountable to the public?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is answerable to the
House for such questions.
Earlier, I answered the question of whether Canadian citizens
are subject to illegal espionage. The Privacy Commissioner is
investigating. A report a few years ago said that they were not. I
hope that the same positive report will come out of this
investigation. As for the structure of this commission, it
answers to the House through the Minister of National Defence,
who must defend his budget estimates before the House of
Commons.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister should reread some
answers which his minister gave on this subject.
I shall ask my second question. How can the Prime Minister
refuse to set up a real external control mechanism for the CSE's
activities, when the Liberal Party in opposition barely five years
ago demanded just such a system to control the CSE?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are looking into this situation now. It is something
that has come up recently. The minister said that it was possible,
but people must also understand that this kind of activity
concerns what goes on outside our country, and helps to ensure
that terrorist acts do not occur in our society; various
governments throughout the world exchange information so that
all societies in the world can protect one another.
I think that we must do so in a reasonable manner, in
co-operation with the other levels of government. If there were
a way to find an acceptable control mechanism, I would really
like to do so. For now, I do not have the solution, but if I can find
it, I will be pleased to submit it to the House of Commons.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the words
honesty, openness and integrity appeared in the red book in the
last federal campaign, as they did in the Reform Party's blue
book for three years longer. We are trying desperately to
encourage this government to walk the talk.
I would like to read from the ethics principles that are in
place: ``Public office holders should not step out of their official
roles to assist private entities or persons in their dealings with
the government where this would result in preferential treatment
to any person''.
My question for the Prime Minister is does he believe that in
the case of the subject today with the Minister of Canadian
Heritage this principle is being violated?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have clearly explained what happened many times to
the House. I came to the conclusion that the minister sent a letter
as a member of Parliament. When it was interpreted by some
people to be a recommendation, he explained clearly to all
concerned that was not his intention. He corrected himself
7316
without any pressure from anybody when he realized that his
letter had caused some confusion.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have no
choice but to interpret that answer as meaning that the Prime
Minister does not believe the principle was violated.
Could we then ask the Prime Minister, in order to bring some
level of confidence to the people of this country that things are
going right, that the ethics counsellor should now be asked to
conduct a full and open investigation, making the results public
in this House as well as to all Canadians? Will the Prime
Minister undertake to give the ethics counsellor that authority
today?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the ethics counsellor has informed me that he is
satisfied with the conclusion I have come to at this time. I do not
know what else is needed at this time. He has reported to me, as
it is his responsibility, and I have reported that to the House of
Commons.
* * *
(1450)
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Industry.
Yesterday in Vancouver in a speech to the Tourism
Association of Canada the Prime Minister announced the
creation of the Canadian Tourism Commission and a substantial
increase in funding to promote tourism.
Will the minister tell this House what these initiatives mean
for job creation and economic growth in my riding and across
the country?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think it is important that we in the House focus not
just on the importance of tourism but on the effect it has on job
creation throughout Canada.
This announcement means that the federal government is
back in the business of selling Canada as the world's best
tourism destination. It means jobs for Canadians. It means
improvement in our current account balance and even the
editorial writers at the Financial Post today said: ``The federal
government needs not only to spend less, it needs to spend
smarter. An example of smarter spending is Ottawa's decision
this week to bolster its support for the tourism industry''.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In spite of the
election promise made by the Prime Minister not to increase
taxes, the Minister of Finance, through irresponsible
statements, and particularly since yesterday, lets the uncertainty
persist regarding the possibility that RRSPs will be taxed. Yet,
all agree that such a measure would be irresponsible, despicable
as well as a step backward.
Will the Prime Minister eliminate the uncertainty that
prevails by pledging not to tax RRSPs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance is doing something that has
never been done previously, before a budget is tabled. He is
holding vast consultations with Canadians. Everything is
subject to review. There may be people who favour that option. I
do not know. Once this consultation exercise is completed, the
minister will have all the necessary information to prepare a
budget with a very clear objective: To create jobs and to reduce
the deficit.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister does not realize that his Minister of
Finance is himself responsible for that uncertainty and that
unacceptable situation. Yesterday morning, RRSPs were not
going to be taxed; in the afternoon, the minister did not know for
sure, while in the evening there was a possibility that RRSPs
might be taxed. This is irresponsible on the part of the
government.
If the government really wants to show taxpayers that it is
serious about reducing spending and not increasing taxes, why
does the Prime Minister refuse to formally pledge that he will
not raise taxes and that he will not tax RRSPs? The Prime
Minister must fulfill his promise!
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have to wait. The budget will be tabled in February,
as is the case every year. The answer will then be known. In the
meantime, the Minister of Finance is doing his homework. I
think it is a very good idea to consult people and not rule out any
solution. Let us not forget that some people complain that our
tax system is not always adequate and is sometimes unfair. The
minister is considering the whole issue of taxation. Moreover,
he is inviting all Canadians to make representations. For
example, Mr. Battle, who works in the field of social policy in
Canada, appeared before the committee yesterday and said that
the government could go ahead with its reform but should also
look at the taxation issue to ensure that the system is fair to all
Canadians.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there are still a lot of unanswered questions relating to the
Daniilidis application.
7317
The Minister of Canadian Heritage took six months to clarify
his intervention to Mr. Daniilidis' application. When did the
Prime Minister learn of the intervention by the Minister of
Canadian Heritage?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at the beginning of this month.
(1455)
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
1978 John Munro called a judge on behalf of a man being tried
for an offence. He was forced to resign from the cabinet because
this was in violation of ministerial rules of conduct established
by Prime Minister Trudeau at the time.
Will the present Prime Minister uphold the ethical standards
that were applied by Prime Minister Trudeau and ask the
Minister of Canadian Heritage for his resignation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I explained exactly the situation. It is not the same
situation at all. I looked at this situation with the documentation
that is in front of the public. The minister acted as soon as he
learned that his letter created the impression that he had tried to
influence the case. He clarified it very clearly in unequivocal
terms. I am satisfied that he has done in the circumstances what
had to be done to clarify it to make sure there was no ambiguity.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Health. Mr. Justice Krever
will give groups represented before the commission only ten
days to formulate comments and make recommendations and
only two days to question the experts, after the report on the
blood supply system is tabled.
In the public interest and in order to give groups represented
before the Krever Commission a chance to give this report some
careful study, will the minister agree to ask Mr. Justice Krever to
give the groups more time to look at the details of the report?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am surprised at the question. We have just had a series
of questions based on interference. Now the Bloc asks me if I
will intervene with a judge.
No, I will not. The Krever commission is a judicial inquiry.
Mr. Krever did ask for an extension of his time, did ask for
additional moneys to study the blood supply system and we did
give him the additional moneys and the additional time in order
to do a very good job in studying the blood supply system in
Canada.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, earlier this morning the Minister of Canadian
Heritage tabled a letter that he wrote to Mr. Pattichis regarding
an application to the CRTC. That letter was in response to a
letter he received on September 20.
I wonder whether the minister would table that letter and any
other communications he had regarding this case.
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the letter addressed to me of course is
privileged by the writer but I will be in touch with him. If he
agrees this will be tabled.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister.
In this age of government cutbacks and free trade agreements
and rapid technological change Canada needs a strong minister
to protect and promote our cultural heritage.
This latest mistake, as the Prime Minister described the
actions of the minister of heritage, is further proof of an
alarming incompetence by the minister and his office.
Will the Prime Minister ask the minister of heritage to do the
honourable thing and resign?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): No, Mr.
Speaker.
* * *
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board and the
minister responsible for the national infrastructure program.
We have heard many members opposite suggest that the
national infrastructure program is simply filling potholes in the
nation's highways.
As this is Technology in Government Week, I would like to
ask the minister if he could tell us what the infrastructure
program is doing to build the electronic highway for the next
century.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, fully two-thirds of the infrastructure program are
traditionally roads, sewers and sidewalks and these are projects
that have a long term payback in our communities in terms of
attracting additional investment dollars and improving the
quality of life. We also are helping to fund information highway
projects.
7318
Some $27 million of infrastructure money is going into high
technology infrastructure mainly in our school systems in New
Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. It is not only
helping in terms of better communications but it is helping to
improve the education system to help prepare our young people
for the future.
* * *
(1500 )
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order and draw to your attention the official Hansard
debates for Tuesday, October 25, 1994. On page 7178 is my
member's statement on national parks. The first sentence of the
last paragraph states:
The premier of the province of New Brunswick has quietly increased over 1,00
different fees-
This is incorrect. What I actually stated was ``1,000 different
fees''. In the French version of the
Hansard for the same day my
statement was recorded correctly. I offer this as a correction and
I trust that members will concur.
The Speaker: We will look into this request.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
appreciate it if the Leader of the Government in the House would
announce the business of the House for the next few days.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to present the weekly business statement. When
you call Orders of the Day, we will commence the second
reading debate on Bill C-57 regarding the World Trade
Organization.
Tomorrow we will start with Bill C-36 regarding the Split
Lake agreement. This will be followed by resumption of debate
on Bill C-53 regarding the Canadian heritage department
reorganization, and Bill C-54 respecting technical changes in
the Canada pension plan and old age security legislation.
On Monday we will commence second reading of Bill C-56,
amendments to the environmental assessment legislation. We
would then return to uncompleted debates such as those on Bills
C-53, C-54, C-36, or Bill C-55, the Yukon surface rights bill.
On Tuesday we shall return if necessary to Bill C-57,
followed by resumption of other unfinished debates.
On Wednesday we shall begin with Bill C-50, the Canadian
Wheat Board amendments after which we would again return to
unfinished debates.
We will assess progress on legislation early next week before
announcing business for Thursday and Friday. However
members opposite may want to know now that I may well
designate next Thursday as an opposition day, but this will be
subject obviously to confirmation.
_____________________________________________
7318
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.) moved that Bill C-57, an act to implement the agreement
establishing the World Trade Organization, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are considering
today, Bill C-57, is an act to implement the agreement
establishing the World Trade Organization. The bill will ensure
the implementation of the GATT agreement which I signed on
behalf of Canada in Morocco in April.
Adoption of this legislation will enable Canadians to reap the
benefits of the biggest trade deal in history. By creating a more
open and stable international trading environment this
agreement will generate increased Canadian exports and
investment. Exports, the driving force behind Canada's recent
economic recovery, are crucial to the achievement of this
government's job and growth agenda and to Canada's
continuing prosperity.
(1505)
The legislation before us today approves the agreement. It
amends Canada's existing laws and tariff schedules to bring
them into conformity with our obligations under the Uruguay
round agreement. Finally, it provides for the appointment of
representatives to the new World Trade Organization and for the
payment of Canada's share of its budget.
We made clear before assuming office that a Liberal
government would continue to support GATT as the cornerstone
of Canada's trade policy. We undertook to focus our efforts on
breaking the deadlock in the GATT Uruguay round of
negotiations and on building a new World Trade Organization.
This legislation before us today is the fruit of those efforts.
The Uruguay round, the largest most comprehensive trade
negotiation ever undertaken, involved more governments than
any of the previous rounds of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade. The final package contains over 30 agreements,
understandings and declarations, capped by the agreement to
7319
create the new World Trade Organization. The agreements
include an enormous package of national commitments to lower
tariffs and non-tariff barriers to merchandise trade, a thorough
reform of trade rules and the extension of the world trading
system to cover such new issues as trade in services and trade in
intellectual property.
Completion of the Uruguay round will have major
implications for the world and for the Canadian economy well
into the next century. Conclusion of the round after seven and a
half years of difficult and uncertain negotiations has already had
a positive impact through improved confidence in the global
economy.
The GATT Secretariat in Geneva estimates that the global
income will be at least $500 billion higher in the year 2005,
some 10 years hence, than it would have been without the
Uruguay round. Some economists believe that even these
numbers, large though they are, may underestimate the impetus
to growth, innovation and investment that will result from the
Uruguay round agreement. Economists without exception have
underlined the substantial potential benefits for all members of
the global trading system, including Canada.
Using prudent economic assumptions, we estimate
quantifiable Canadian gains of at least a .4 per cent increase in
real income, or $3 billion annually when the agreement is fully
phased in. These are however only a fraction of the actual gains
that will certainly occur.
Although this Uruguay round agreement covers a wide array
of issues affecting international trade relations, three areas
stand out, both as a result of the leadership role that Canada
played in promoting progress and consensus and as a result of
these elements representing for us the most important and
beneficial achievements of the Uruguay round. I refer to the
market access package, to the agreement on subsidies and
countervailing duties which grew out of a Canadian draft, and to
the agreement to establish a new institution, the World Trade
Organization, with a greatly strengthened and integrated dispute
settlement system. The creation of the World Trade
Organization is largely the result of a joint initiative by Canada
and the European union.
Under the Uruguay round agreement access to markets for
industrial products will be substantially improved with most
tariffs being cut by at least one-third. Deeper cuts including
zero tariffs in some 10 sectors will also be made. Overall,
Canadian exports to the European union for example will benefit
from tariff reductions of almost 60 per cent. To take another
example, tariffs on our exports to Japan will be reduced by about
70 per cent.
(1510)
The impact of tariff escalation will also be reduced. For
example the gaps between tariffs on finished products and raw
materials will fall by as much as two-thirds for products of
importance to Canada such as copper, lead, zinc, and other
non-ferrous metals.
A major achievement of the Uruguay round is that for the first
time the agricultural sector is brought under the rules based
multilateral trade regime. Agricultural tariffs will be cut overall
by 36 per cent with domestic support measures to be reduced by
20 per cent and export subsidies by 36 per cent in terms of
budgetary expenditures over a six year period. This represents a
significant gain for Canadian agricultural exporters. More
generally the agricultural reforms will contribute to improving
efficiency in the world economy, providing a good start for
future disciplines particularly on agricultural export subsidies.
Also for the first time trade in services and trade related
intellectual property are brought within the framework of the
multilateral trade disciplines. The agreement on services covers
trade and investment worth some $2 trillion annually and will
promote continuing liberalization in these sectors. Multilateral
rules on intellectual property will provide a stronger basis for
the development and transfer of technology. Agreements in
areas as diverse as rules of origin, import licensing and
pre-shipment inspection will improve conditions for all
international traders.
As I already mentioned the agreement strengthens trade
remedy rules, thus realizing one of Canada's priority objectives
on going into the Uruguay round some seven and a half years
ago. The agreement defines the concept of subsidy for the first
time in a multilateral trade agreement. Further, it sets out
criteria exempting certain subsidies for regional development,
research and development, and the environment from
countervailing measures. In this era of fiscal constraint, Canada
will benefit from the strengthening of multilateral disciplines on
subsidies that can have such an adverse effect on our
competitive position in both domestic and foreign markets.
Although the Uruguay round agreement does contain some
improvements with respect to anti-dumping measures, we shall
have to go further to ensure that such measures are not used in
the future as an instrument for continuing protectionism.
The agreement effectively precludes unilateral measures in
responding to trade disputes. The new integrated dispute
settlement system, one with clearer rules, tighter deadlines and
for the first time an appeal process with binding effect is a major
improvement over the existing GATT system. In the final
analysis rules after all are only as effective as the means of
enforcing them. This wholesale reform of the multilateral trade
dispute settlement system therefore can represent an important
if unquantifiable benefit for the small and medium size trade
players like Canada which are inherently vulnerable to the threat
of unilateralism by the economic giants.
7320
Without a doubt the crowning achievement however of the
Uruguay round is the creation of the new World Trade
Organization that will replace the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade. Such a new organization is indispensable in
overseeing the operation of the complex series of agreements
and other instruments resulting from the Uruguay round. It will
also provide for greater political surveillance of the system by
trade ministers in coming years.
(1515)
The new World Trade Organization will finally put
international trade on a firm institutional footing by becoming
the third pillar of the world's commercial and financial
structure, along with the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund.
As a successor to the GATT, the World Trade Organization
will provide the forum for future trade negotiations aimed at
further trade liberalization world wide and the development of
new global trade rules.
All parts of Canada, all regions, most sectors of our economy
will reap substantial benefit from the Uruguay round
agreements. The business and agricultural communities as well
as the provinces were closely consulted throughout the course of
the seven years and more of negotiation. It is in no small part due
to their contributions that these agreements will provide real
tangible benefits for Canadian producers and consumers in all
regions.
Elimination of tariffs for example on paper and allied
products and lower tariffs on lumber will substantially improve
access to the European union and Japanese markets for our
forest products industry, particularly in British Columbia,
Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.
The reduction in tariffs and non-tariff barriers in Europe,
Japan and Korea, although more limited than we would have
wished, will enhance the export competitiveness of our fish
products based in Atlantic Canada and British Columbia.
The agreement will produce a more market oriented and
global trading environment for our agricultural sector. The
reduction in export subsidies and in the volume of subsidized
exports will put our field crops, particularly grains and oilseeds
from our prairie provinces, on a more equal footing with those of
our principal competitors.
At the same time, supply management will be able to continue
operating as an effective Canadian approach to producing and
marketing dairy and poultry products. The Uruguay round
agreement allows for the continuation of supply management
through high import tariffs that will maintain a real security for
these sectors.
New rules and disciplines on sanitary and phytosanitary
measures will improve prospects for exports of many Canadian
agricultural and forest products.
The reduction and harmonization at lower rates of tariffs for
chemicals and chemical products will improve access to world
markets especially in Asia and Latin America for our producers
concentrated in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec.
Sectoral free trade for pharmaceuticals will result in lower
import costs and improved market access and will enhance
exports to offshore markets, particularly from Quebec and
Ontario. Improved protection for intellectual property will
enhance prospects for investment and for research and
development.
The Canadian communications and electronic equipment
industries concentrated in Quebec and Ontario will benefit from
the substantial reduction of tariffs in important industrialized
markets. Software and computer service exports will be
facilitated by the agreements on services and trade related
intellectual property.
Canada has many strengths in the services sector that will
benefit from increased global market opportunities brought
about by the new General Agreement on Trade and Services.
Services in which Canada is competitive internationally include
various professional and management consulting services,
technical testing, financial, computer and environmental
services, telecommunications, air transport, tourism,
commercial education and training, health related services,
maintenance and repair, and services incidental to agriculture,
mining, forestry, energy and manufacturing.
Increased clarity and discipline in the use of multilateral trade
rules, particularly countervailing duties as well as more
effective dispute settlement mechanisms, will provide greater
security of access for Canadian products in many markets.
Canadian products that have in the past suffered harassment
from countervail actions that can expect more secure access as a
result of the agreement include lumber, fish, pork and
magnesium.
(1520 )
In addition, new rules under the Uruguay round agreement on
subsidies provide for the possibility of taking action against
subsidized products that displace Canadian products in foreign
markets, including those of the subsidizing country. These
provisions alone can be a real benefit to Canadian manufacturers
of civil aircraft and ground transport equipment, steel and steel
products and other sectors that have often been heavily
subsidized by foreign governments.
As a country that stands to benefit greatly from these
agreements, Canada has insisted that our principal partners fully
implement their Uruguay round obligations by legislating them
7321
into domestic law. We paid particular attention to the United
States implementing of legislation. We were in frequent touch
with the American authorities at the highest level. We urged
them to ensure that the United States legislation faithfully
reflects the international agreements.
We are satisfied that the United States legislation now
awaiting vote in Congress while not perfect, substantially
implements the Uruguay round agreements. All of our principal
trading partners are now in the process of moving their
legislation forward. We are currently reviewing the European
union and Japanese implementing bills, which have just been
tabled. While none of our major partners has yet completed the
legislative processes, it appears probable that they will in fact
do so in time to bring the agreements into force and to establish
the new World Trade Organization two months or so hence on
January 1, 1995.
It is important that Canada play its part and give a clear signal
to the world community that we intend to complete our domestic
procedures and implement these agreements into Canadian law
in time for the January 1 start-up. However, we shall keep a
close eye on the course of the legislative process in Washington,
Tokyo and the European union.
We do not intend to complete our legislative procedures until
we see how events unfold elsewhere. Accordingly, we shall
proclaim our legislation only after our principal partners have
obtained their necessary legislative approval.
With the exception of Germany, Canada is more dependent on
international trade for its economic well-being than any of the
other G-7 countries. Canadians understand that our domestic
market is too small to generate alone the level of prosperity we
enjoy.
It behoves Canadians to make a contribution to the
functioning of the international trading system proportionate to
our interest in the system itself. That is why Canada played a key
role in the seven years or more of negotiations that led to the
agreement to establish the new World Trade Organization which
will replace the GATT on January 1. That is why we are now
playing a leadership role in the complex, detailed, preparatory
work required to get the new World Trade Organization up and
running.
We in Canada are committed to completing as soon as
possible the unfinished work of the Uruguay round in such areas
as government procurement, financial and telecommunications
services. We are also committed to beginning work on that new
generation of trade policy issues including such matters as the
relationship of international trade to the environment, to
competition policy, to investment and to labour standards. We
intend to help shape the agenda and basic concepts at an early
stage so that future negotiations will advance Canadian
interests.
Canada's economic strength now and in the future will depend
fundamentally on our willingness to stay on the leading edge of
freer trade, to continue to take an active and creative role in
forging new relationships and in building new structures that
over time can extend the reach of a rules-based international
order.
(1525 )
The multinational system centred on the World Trade
Organization will be the foundation of that international order
but it is not the only element of what is and must be a complex
and constantly evolving trade order.
We must harness for positive ends the profound forces
pushing us all toward deeper economic integration. Today it is
more accurate to speak not of trade policy as such but of
international economic policy. Jurisdictions and policy areas
that have long been considered to be quintessentially domestic
are now increasingly subject to international negotiations and
rule making.
The old trade policy issues of tariff and non-tariff barriers
remain on the table but they are being overtaken by a new
agenda: concerns over investment policy, regulatory regimes,
intellectual property, competition law and even international
monetary policy, a trend which in turn reflects the evolution of a
yet more globally integrated world economy.
If we accept that economic security inevitably lies in
deepening our commitment to open rules based trade, then the
issue is really no longer whether we should surrender
sovereignty but how we take a leading role in building a new
kind of sovereignty to reflect a new economic order.
The reality is that Canada cannot wait for the international
community to provide the institutions of mechanisms that will
ensure our economic security. Multilateralism while remaining
our first option cannot remain our only option. For Canada, this
means taking a yet more active and creative role in forging
additional relationships and in building new structures that can
over time extend the reach of rules based trade.
This was the original justification for the U.S.-Canada Free
Trade Agreement and the subsequent North American Free
Trade Agreement. It was really just that, to push forward in
areas where our degree of economic integration seemed to call
for a deeper, more comprehensive, more expeditious regime of
rules and procedures than the GATT itself could provide.
It is Canada's goal to extend this deeper free trade
relationship throughout the western hemisphere and beyond,
regionally if possible, bilaterally if necessary. We are already
engaged in the negotiation of bilateral investment agreements
with some international partners. We shall have to consider the
negotiation of bilateral trade agreements if other avenues
forward should become blocked.
7322
Although the negotiation and implementation of NAFTA has
focused Canada's attention in recent years southward to the rest
of our hemisphere, we must also begin to explore additional
means of expanding our trade relations eastward, across the
Atlantic to Europe and westward across the Pacific to Asia.
The momentum for trade liberalization both in the western
hemisphere and around the world is strong. Canada seeks to
maintain that momentum. Accordingly I shall convene a
meeting of the trade ministers of Japan, the United States and
the European union here in Canada this spring.
We shall strive to develop a consensus for new common trade
initiatives that will be considered at the G-7 summit next June
in Halifax.
In submitting this bill today to the House for approval, the
government counts on the consensus of all parties in this House
that the cornerstone of trade policy is a multilateral system of
mutually agreed market access conditions and
non-discriminatory trade rules applicable to all that free, fair
and open trade is essential for the future of the Canadian
economy and for securing the competitiveness and long-term
sustainable development of Canada and that trade expansion
contributes to job creation, achieves higher standards of living,
offers greater choice to consumers and strengthens the Canadian
economic union. Such are the objectives that the bill before us
today seeks to promote.
(1530)
I invite members from each side of the House to join in
considering its provisions, its purposes and ensuring its timely
adoption.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity today to speak on second reading of
Bill C-57, an Act to implement the Agreement Establishing the
World Trade Organization. On April 15 in Marrakesh, Morocco,
the 125 signatories to the General Agreement on Tariff and
Trade, commonly referred to as GATT, finally signed the
agreement that finalized the lengthy negotiations of the
Uruguay Round, which had taken nearly eight years.
Later on, I will elaborate somewhat on the process that led to
the conclusion of this agreement and on the various stages of the
Uruguay Round. By signing the Marrakesh agreement, member
countries created the World Trade Organization, which is to
replace GATT from now on. However, implementing the various
provisions of this agreement and the tariff tabled by Canada in
February will require a number of adjustments to existing
legislation.
The bill before the House today is essentially concerned with
consequential amendments to existing legislation. Part I of the
bill covers the ratification of the agreement, identifies the
positions of Canadian representatives with the various bodies of
the World Trade Organization, determines the payment of
Canada's contribution towards the operating expenses of the
World Trade Organization and contains provisions for
suspending concessions the agreement allows in specific cases.
Part II of the bill, which is also the most substantial part,
amends certain acts to reflect the obligations contained in the
agreement, and as a result, many existing acts will be amended
by this bill. These include, for instance, the Bank Act, the
Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, the Canadian Wheat
Board Act, the Canada Cooperative Associations Act, the
Copyright Act, the Customs Act, the Export and Import Permits
Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Investment Canada
Act, the Investment Companies Act, the Meat Import Act, the
Patent Act, the Special Import Measures Act, the Trade-marks
Act, the Trust Companies Act, the Loan Companies Act and the
Western Grain Transportation Act.
Part III deals with the coming into effect of this bill, showing
the extent of the ramifications and implications this bill will
have in our everyday life. In this regard, it is obvious that the
significant changes brought about by trade liberalization are
likely to raise a number of concerns in certain circles. The
changes made in international trade rules are undoubtedly
bound to result in a restructuring of the various national
economies and certain economic sectors are more affected than
others.
But apart from these structural adjustments, which are
temporary and transitional, we must recognize that trade
liberalization presents us with to formidable challenges and
note the remarkable adaptability demonstrated so far by the
various sectors of our economy as well as the vitality shown by
Canadian and Quebec businesses in the face of market
expansion.
Trade liberalization forces us to become competitive. We
must rely on those areas where we excel, occupy new market
niches, put the emphasis on value-added products and,
consequently, invest massively in research and development as
well as put in place coherent and efficient vocational training
and manpower adjustment policies.
The establishment of the World Trade Organization will result
in the strengthening and hastening of the planetary trade
liberalization movement. There is every indication that it will
soon be joined by new members, some of which, like China,
show a major potential for economic development.
(1535)
Needless to say that we will be supporting this bill, since it is
intended to implement an